In states that allow it, the worker has the right to join the union or not. If the worker doesn't join the union they pay no dues and they don't get a vote, but they do enjoy all the benefits and protections under the union contract.
That's something I'd have an issue with. If you don't belong to the union then you really have no rights to all the benefits and protections of a union contract. Of course, in reality that tends to fly in the face of hiding your union membership from the employer so I'm not sure what the resolution there is. I don't see it being fair on the unions that they negotiate contracts for non-members (or fair on the non-members that they can't sell themselves short if they so desire).
Lurker is making an assumption that all employees in mixed shops (employers with union and non-union workers) have all the benefits from the union contract. That is rarely the case. When there is some cross-over, it usually involves wage tiers (which can actually hamstring the non-union worker because it prevents them negotiating a better salary). It usually doesn't involve greivance processes, union pensions, etc.
And Lurker has yet to address my question as to why he feels teachers need to be treated differently than others in the work-force. I think he's putting the teacher's unions ahead of the educational needs of schoolkids, just for the sake of preserving a union, and forgetting about the whole purpose of teachers in the first place.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Can you document a case where non-union workers are holding the same job position as union workers at the same employer?
I answered the question of why I think teachers need protection when Kulaf asked it. Thanks for dropping the act that union busting wasn't a main goal of yours.
As a matter of fact, yes. My parents worked for AT&T, which was a mixed shop. They were not part of the union, yet held same positions as union people. Same with my brother who works for Boeing. He is non-union, but has a job position that is the same as a union position. In both cases, the wage tiers are set by the union, but the benefit package isn't (no union pensions or union sponsored health care). So it might be argued that the non-union people are actually making it easier for the unions, in that the union doesn't have to factor in the cost of pensions and health care for the non-unions when its time to hit the bargaining table.
So it seems that having mixed shops don't bust unions as you have claimed.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
They had the same job title, or was it a similar job function where the union and the employer agreed that a certain number of positions could be filled by non-union workers?
Anyways, you are describing something completely different from what you originally suggested, where the employer decides on their own whether to hire union or non-union. That would by definition end unions.
I've been pretty consistent in saying that it needs to be easier to remove bad teachers.
OMG! That is 90% of the teachers in the union! Your democratic party overlords will spank you bare assed for such a suggestion and everyone will laugh at you.
Of course, allowing the employer to disregard the union for hiring purposes would be more than a step closer to not having unions. Shifting the decision to the employer sort of defeats the whole purpose of workers organizing in the first place. That great if you want all unions gone, but that's a complete 180 from where our system is now and the legal precidents that have been set over the decades.
And there's no guarantee education would be better just because you have lower paid and protected teachers. In case you hadn't noticed, the free market isn't as good at solving problems as some ideologies like to think.
Lurker wrote:They had the same job title, or was it a similar job function where the union and the employer agreed that a certain number of positions could be filled by non-union workers?
Anyways, you are describing something completely different from what you originally suggested, where the employer decides on their own whether to hire union or non-union. That would by definition end unions.
AT&T and Boeing decide on their own to hire union or non-union employees. It hasn't ended the unions. Your argument is full of boogey-men and histrionic hypotheticals. I have given you real world examples, and the sky hasn't come crashing in.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar wrote:AT&T and Boeing decide on their own to hire union or non-union employees.
For which positions?
Why does it matter? A job is a job. Whther a person does something similar to a union person, but the title of the position is different, is the position really different in any meaningful way?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
You said that ATT and Boeing had decided on their own to hire non-union employees. I wanted to verify that. It's much more likely that the union agreed that certain similar postions could be filled by non-union workers and that it was part of the collective bargaining agreement.
You said that ATT and Boeing had decided on their own to hire non-union employees. I wanted to verify that. It's much more likely that the union agreed that certain similar postions could be filled by non-union workers and that it was part of the collective bargaining agreement.
So what were the positions?
I have no idea what the specific positions are.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
I guess I just don't believe that workers that are not in physically dangerous positions need unions. I think they are an outdated concept for anything but dangerous jobs. I just don't think workers should be able to hold employers hostage and I think often these companies have a hell of a hard time getting rid of bad employees, which benefits no one.
There are no guarantees for most of us out in the workplace, we work hard to either keep our jobs or get that promotion or experience to market to another company. I don't see teachers as (or any other white-collar type worker) someone in a position that needs union guidos. They get in the way of progress imo.
Embar wrote:I have no idea what the specific positions are.
But you know for certain that they were the same positions the union was filling and that both AT&T and Boeing were able to unilaterally decide to hire non-union. Uh huh.
Harlowe wrote:I guess I just don't believe that workers that are not in physically dangerous positions need unions.
I disagree but understand the argument. But how would you protect the workers in dangerous positions after the rules change to allow the employer to unilaterally decide whether to hire union or non-union? Or would the "employer decides" rule only apply to non-dangerous jobs? We have a legal framework that allows workers to organize and it isn't based on the type of work they are doing.
I wish I had the answer to that, I have no idea how we would have unions for some jobs and not for others. I just cringe every time a union causes more problems and expense than it does good for the company or employee. Honestly, I would hate to be an employer in a unionized business. Esh, talk about having your nuts in a vice while your hands are behind your back.
I am trying to figure out why a union would be more beneficial to employees of dangerous jobs. The safer working conditions pitch doesn't carry much weight in today's workplace, since safety in high hazard work places is heavily regulated by both state and federal agencies who do not have to rely on union representation.
