Is This The Death Of Labor Unions?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by diehardgator1, Jan 21, 2014.

  1. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,882
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,461
    Yes they have. They used to be all about worker's rights. Unfortunately, the more tied to the political machine they became, the less they cared about their original goals and the focus turned, ironically, to "growing the business."
  2. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,227
    Shabby is an anti-progressive Progressive. Progress is the enemy. If society should make any progress, a good Luddite should deny it and get into their horse-drawn carriage and drive away, covering their ears while screaming gibberish. He aspires to be a regressive Progressive, but the standards there are rather stringent.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,375
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +979
    When I was a union member, I could never shake the embarrassment of thinking that I was unable to negotiate my own benefits, based on my own work performance. I had to rely on another person to negotiate for me.

    I hated that I had to rely on the union for my very existence. It wasn't until I was able to get out of the union lemming masses, and into management, that I was truly able to prove that I was worth the benefits that I alone was able to negotiate for myself, and I did very well.

    To me, being a union member was always considered to be a crutch. I still feel that way when another tells me that s/he is a member of a union. I pity them... I honestly do.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. tegator80
    Online

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    5,952
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +2,619
    One story of mine, many years ago. I was in central Texas on a manufacturing plant start-up and I sometimes came in late afternoons to work through the night. When I pulled into the parking lot, I saw a row of construction workers lined up side by side in the field adjacent to the lot and not in a line like at a box office. It took me a while to figure out why.

    The reason they were lined up like they were was because they were union and the rules said they would get a 15 minute pre-closing whistle followed by the final closing whistle. But they couldn't leave the premises until the final whistle blew. Their solution? Know exactly where the line of "off premises" was and wait there until the final whistle...and NO ONE was one step back from the line.

    And union people wonder why others don't like union shops. They seem to go out of their way to antagonize the management over their "rights." But in today's world, the best thing to say about this behavior is that they are eventually going to get "Twinkied." But then they just remain mentally entitled but more angry.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    Unions are no different than liberal democrats. They promote dependency. Helps the union leaders keep their jobs and buys votes for the liberal democrats. And lowers the self esteem of the dependent, increasing the bond of neediness/dependency. Part of the plan.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,882
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,461

    Really, more like any political organization. That's the problem. Like everything in this country it seems, this works on the adversarial system. Thus, like politicians and political organizations, there is a definite emphasis on opposition to the other side and creating opposition rather than cooperation and doing what's best for the whole (management AND workers AND the overall health of the company).

    It's sad really.

    I remember a past post (about a year ago) that talked about how different the mentality is in Germany between labor and management, specifically that they view themselves more as partners than adversaries. I guess that's what you get when your country is founded by lawyers.
  7. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,445
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,864
    The main difference with Germany is that labor has input on strategic business decisions. Even in heavily unionized fields, its pretty much exlusively management calling the shots here. The Boeing situation is a good example ... they pick up a new lucrative contract and use it to win concessions from labor, rather than rewarding them. I know people are giddy about dealing unions a death blow, but given the adversarial nature of politics and labor relations, is that going to lead to more labor peace? I doubt it. Pre-NLRA here it wasnt just people working in bad conditions for not so good pay, there was a lot of shooting and violence too.
  8. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,882
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,461
    Yep. A partnership, as in "we're all in this together." Makes sense. Too much sense, it seems, for us.
  9. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,245
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +396
    FIFY. HTH.

    The case also doesn't deal with all unions, as you imply in the title, but rather only with government-employee unions.

    Those kinds of facts are important in Supreme Court cases.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  10. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,375
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +979
    That "costs of negotiating the pay that they will receive..." Also includes the cost to pay-off politicians to support causes in which they don't support.

    That's the argument here... Don't try to twist this into something it's not.
  11. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,245
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +396
    No, it doesn't Dave. Non members can always refuse to have their money to go union political causes. The Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. and Communications Workers v. Beck that workers are not be required to pay for “non-chargeable” expenses unrelated to administering the collective bargaining agreement. The worker will still have to pay full monthly dues to the union, but he or she may request a yearly refund of whatever portion of their dues went towards non-chargeables like political contributions.

    Don't try to twist this into something it's not.
  12. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,445
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,864
    From the little I know about this case, it seems that its more about who is essentially a de facto state employee. The state/union is saying they are acting like one, so they are, the very small # rejecting union representation seem to be arguing that they are not state employees.
  13. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,245
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +396
    Sort of. The initial issue is, since they are paid primarily with government funds, are they within the Abood rule. In other words, are they required to pay into the union's adminstrative costs (which, could be said to mean de facto state employee, which is why I'm not disagreeing with that assertion). From the union's perspective, the union negotiates to improve their pay and working conditions, which leads to the second issue, which is, if they do fall within the union, should the Abood rule, that required administrative costs of the union must still be paid, violate the First Amendment. The result, for the Union, which Abood sought to avoid, was the "free rider" problem: that individuals who benefit from the union pay nothing into the union that aids them in obtaining that benefit. And, of course, from the individual's perspective, they don't want to have to associate with an organization they don't want to, raising the First Amendment issuem, and their request to overrule the Abood rule.

    Of course, there are political implications because campaign finance has largely tried to be "fair" by having the same rules for corporations (which largely support Republicans) and unions (which largely support Democrats, although this case does not involve all unions, only state employee unions). And, of course, the weakening of one has political ramifications for future election fundraising.
  14. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,860
    Likes Received:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,586
    and headed by one of the most divisive people to ever hold the office
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,882
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,461
    Isn't there a burden of proof for the Union re. whether their actions actually improved pay and conditions or whether they would have been improved anyway?
  16. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,860
    Likes Received:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,586
    so they use the dues from those people to pay operating expenses and allocate operating expenses collected from others to pay for democrat support. Unions can also use the dues to pay for the "leaders" and others that provide get out the vote support that is supposedly not political support as the people they bring in could theoretically vote for anybody even if they are given a completed ballot on the way to the polling booth
  17. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,445
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,864
    Pretty simple, you could look at the pay of unionized v. non-unionized. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example of non-union workers making the same or more than union workers in the same job in a non-right to work state.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,245
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +396
    I am not a labor law practitioner, so I can't say without researching the issue (although that certainly sounds reasonable...establishing causation rather than correlation in order to obtain the benefit). However, I don't believe that burden is at issue in this case. The issues I outlined above are what I understand to be presented to the Court here.
  19. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,245
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +396
    I feel comfortable saying that what you are saying is a way to get prosecuted. In addition to any labor laws that prohibit it, that is a knowing and willful violation of campaign finance laws.
  20. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,375
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +979
    ...and labor unions never break any laws, right?

Share This Page