Unions. Whats Your Opinion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Union shops and closed shops are fundamentally different institutions. If new employees in a union shop are able to convince the majority of employees to not require union membership (and they're legally required to have at least a month), they don't need one.

*gasp* Heaven forbid if the majority of the employees decide not to be forced into a union which may not serve their interests!

And I'd say they're basically the same. Either way, you gotta be part of the union to work (if the new employees convince a majority to not make union membership mandatory then it ain't a union shop anymore).

[Arrian]

I agree with Imran on the "closed shop"/"union shop" thing. I don't see much of a difference there. Slight difference, but very slight.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

*gasp* Heaven forbid if the majority of the employees decide not to be forced into a union which may not serve their interests!

Eh? If the majority of employees don't want to be forced into a union, then there wouldn't be a union shop.

And I'd say they're basically the same. Either way, you gotta be part of the union to work

No you don't. A non-union member can work in a union shop for at least a month.

(if the new employees convince a majority to not make union membership mandatory then it ain't a union shop anymore).

No ****. The point, again, is that union shop allows free discourse, giving people who prefer to join another union or not join a union a chance to make their case.

That's not to say that I prefer union shop over an open shop, but equating it to a closed shop is nonsense. And it certainly is not intellectual dishonesty to object to that equation.

[Kuciwalker]

Personally, I think anti-trust law should apply to unions. The rationale works equally well against them as against corporations.

The point, again, is that union shop allows free discourse, giving people who prefer to join another union or not join a union a chance to make their case.

How does a company not being a union shop prevent that free discourse?

[Ramo]

Personally, I think anti-trust law should apply to unions. The rationale works equally well against them as against corporations.

Personally, I think ownership should apply to humans. The rationale works equally well against them as against other property.

How does a company not being a union shop prevent that free discourse?

Do you even know what I was arguing?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

Personally, I think anti-trust law should apply to unions. The rationale works equally well against them as against corporations.

Personally, I think ownership should apply to humans. The rationale works equally well against them as against other property.

Not at all.

How does a company not being a union shop prevent that free discourse?

Do you even know what I was arguing?

That union shops allow for a free discourse on whether or not it should be a union shop?

[Ramo]

Not at all.

If that counts as a valid argument, change my answer to "not at all."

That union shops allow for a free discourse on whether or not it should be a union shop?

I mean, the full argument. The reason why I was arguing that point. Anyways, that was a rhetorical question as it's clear that you don't.

[Frankychan]

I got some good insight.

Hawaii is a very union-intensive state. One of the most influential unions we have here is the Stevedores. They are the ones that move goods into the state, as we only have the docks to ship in goods for us.

They get paid around $120,000 a year for their job, whereas the governor only gets around 50, 000. They went on strike a year ago to get another pay raise and shut down EVERYTHING coming into the state of Hawaii. Personally, I think unions do have a place, but over here they have outlived their usefulness.

We've been having union strikes here a lot recently. The cement union went on strike because they wanted 100% medical coverage (or something close to that) without co-payment. Most of their wives don't work cause they make so much. WTF is that? Right now as I type this our tugboat unions to the outer islands are on union because they want double hours for their paid vacations.

They accumulate so many hours on the open ocean, and they can "refund" these hours to a paid vacation every year, but they want 1 hour to equal 2....most of them don't do squa-doo out there....I work on a boat.

Personally, unions were a good idea, and in some way they still are. But they've been getting really greedy as of late.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frankychan
They get paid around $120,000 a year for their job, whereas the governor only gets around 50, 000.

Yeah, but the governor don't have to pay for anything.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Frankychan
They get paid around $120,000 a year for their job, whereas the governor only gets around 50, 000.

Why does this bug you?

Isn't this is a good reason to join a union.

Which would you prefer: a non-union job that pays peanuts or a union job that pays good money?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No you don't. A non-union member can work in a union shop for at least a month.

Oooh... whoop-te-doo! Since a non-union member can work in a union shop for a WHOLE MONTH, that means it is much different than a close shop! Because, as we all know, people really only work at a new job around a month or so anyway.

What bollocks!

The point, again, is that union shop allows free discourse, giving people who prefer to join another union or not join a union a chance to make their case.

And? You still got to be a part of the union to work there. There is very little difference at all (ie, both suck).

Personally, I think unions do have a place, but over here they have outlived their usefulness.

Wow... this coming from a communist as well . I wouldn't say they outlived their usefulness, just some have. But dock workers and longshoremen have VERY powerful unions anywhere you go in the US. It is difficult to replace them if they go on strike and they know that, so they get paid very, very, very well.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They figured they could blame Reagon and then have their political friends bail them out. They were wrong.

IIRC, Reagan was a union man from his days in SAG and they thought he wouldn't dare destroy a union.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
As a union member in an open-shop, I have always found non-union members leaching off the benefits irritating. Here is a free market solution. Require non-union members to work under whatever management made as an initial offer to the workers. Union members get the final offer. That way if the union really doesn't get anything, then people won't join because it's not cost efficient, not because they can get the benefits without paying. People who are leaching off union-derived benefits will suddenly have to pay to play, one might say.

That's a good idea. It'd be easy for the employer to break the union though in that scenario. Just voluntarily pay the non-union employees more until all the union members abandon the union.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Require non-union members to work under whatever management made as an initial offer to the workers.

So non-union members can't bargain for their own wages? What if a non-union guy is super qualified? He can't say to the boss, tell you what, I'll work for you if my salary is 10% more?

How is that free market at all?!

[Bereta_Eder]

unions are good because owners only care about profits, the worker might as well die. not their business.

unions are necessairy, one worker cant do it by himself.

that leaves the question wether unions are really on the side of the worker or if they are used as an additional means of control by the owners.

but healthy unions are absolutely necessairy.

hijacked unions by the owners must be taken apart and remade to their original goal.