Scott Walker's crusade continues

[Felch]

They don't want to take over the world, they just want to be the political wing of the working class. It's the only rational explanation for what kentonio said. And given their apoplectic reaction to right to work laws, it's pretty clear that unions regard any non-union worker as a threat.

[Uncle Sparky]

So today, I worked with Samuel L Jackson. I can't talk too much about a production-in-progress, but it was, of course a professional UNION sanctioned production. I can tell you we had, over the course of the day 11 extras. Because of schedual changes we had a total of 2 full ACTRA (Association of Canadian Television and Radio Actors) extras, one appentice ACTRA member as an extra, and 8 non-union extras. Because of contractual agreements between the producers and ACTRA, 10 of the extras were paid at union rates. They will have 2.5% deducted from their check that will go to the ACTRA union. The hourly ACTRA amount for an extra in this type of production is about $26 per hour. The non-union hourly rate for the same work on the same production is $11.50/hour. YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO WORK ON ANY PRODUCTION. You have the right to not accept the union rate, if you are not unionized.
Come on, conservatives - tell me you want to proudly make less than 1/2 the wages of a UNION counterpart, doing exactly the same work on the same jobsite to avoid fattening up a union.

[Aeson]

Professional sports unions are another good example of modern unions which make the world a better place. (By shortening the generally meaningless and prolonged regular season from time to time.)

[Dinner]

Oh, I get it now. Unions want union membership to be mandatory.

Now you're just being stupid. The difference between union membership and the agency fee (membership usually costs ~$125 per month in dues while the agency fee is ~$25 per month) has been explained to you multiple times so I must conclude you're deliberately lying. It's not the first time either.

[Felch]

Now you're just being stupid. The difference between union membership and the agency fee (membership usually costs ~$125 per month in dues while the agency fee is ~$25 per month) has been explained to you multiple times so I must conclude you're deliberately lying. It's not the first time either.

But the agency fee doesn't cover political lobbying. And since unions rely on political lobbying in order to improve the condition of workers, anybody who isn't paying for it is free riding. Read the ****ing thread please. Context matters.

[giblets]

But the agency fee doesn't cover political lobbying. And since unions rely on political lobbying in order to improve the condition of workers, anybody who isn't paying for it is free riding. Read the ****ing thread please. Context matters.

That's the nature of political contributions. If you try to help a candidate win, others are able to free ride off of the results. Of coruse political contributions also increase your influence on the politicians who receive them, and that's not something others free ride off of. That's entirely different from the expectation from Republicans that unions represent workers in negotiations while hoping they get agency fees to cover the costs of this representation when the people receiving these benefits can take a free ride.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Seriously though, is there any other private membership based organization the State can mandate private citizens pay money to?

The obtuse routine is a little stale for trolling, padawan. Yes, there are tons. Try joining your local gym with a typical gym contract, then deciding screw it and not paying the cancellation fee. When they take your butt to court to file a breach of contract claim, that's the state in action, providing the enforcement mechanism. When you take the union shop job, you're agreeing to certain terms and conditions - whether you join and pay full dues, or whether you don't join but pay the segregated administrative costs. You're voluntarily entering into a contract with mutual consideration, end of story.

[Felch]

That's entirely different from the expectation from Republicans that unions represent workers in negotiations while hoping they get agency fees to cover the costs of this representation when the people receiving these benefits can take a free ride.

How do non-union workers benefit from a union contract? Around here, companies keep compensation private, and it's generally forbidden to share the information with your co-workers (a custom that I oppose, since transparent pricing is essential to a functioning market).

[MichaeltheGreat]

If they want all workers to receive better conditions, then they should have no problem with free riders. Obviously it's not true, but kentonio said something ridiculous, I pointed it out, and here you are making more personal attacks. Not even one that makes sense, given that I'm a bit old to have been a product of NCLB. MtG showing how classy he is

Make a logical statement that isn't a repetively regurgitated non-sequitur and then maybe you'll appear to be at a bit higher age and intellectual level. You're capable of it when you want to be.

[giblets]

How do non-union workers benefit from a union contract? Around here, companies keep compensation private, and it's generally forbidden to share the information with your co-workers (a custom that I oppose, since transparent pricing is essential to a functioning market).

Is compensation kept private in a union shop? I don't know. If not, +1 for unions.

[Uncle Sparky]

companies keep compensation private

B*llsh*t. This post has destroyed any cred you had in this arguement, which seemed to be more driven by ideology than experience. I've negotiated union contracts, both as a union member and, in other cases, as a producer. HTF do you think union members vote to ratify contracts? They know exactly what the pay scale and compensation package is! It is documented. It is published. Or do you think employers have no idea what they have negotiated? You sir, are an idiot!!!

[MichaeltheGreat]

How do non-union workers benefit from a union contract? Around here, companies keep compensation private, and it's generally forbidden to share the information with your co-workers (a custom that I oppose, since transparent pricing is essential to a functioning market).

And that forbidding sharing compensation information is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 8(a) thereof, IIRC. Already run through the courts - wages and compensation are part of working conditions which employees can not be sanctioned for discussing among themselves under the NLRA.

Non-union workers benefit in a few ways depending on the scenario - in a mixed shop, the opt-out employees get the same wages and benefits as the full members do under the CBA, for which they pay the agency fee and direct benefits costs. In non-union shops competing against union shops, the two groups tend to benchmark each other - I saw this in dealing with electrical contractors all the time in my old line of work (not talking household or light commercial crap - talking utility grade electrical contractors) The IBEW shops have to be in the range of being price-competitive, and typically competed by guaranteeing higher percentage of journeymen and higher overall training levels, and the non-union shops had to pay decent wages slightly under union scale, but competitive enough to not lose their good employees to the IBEW shops.

[MichaeltheGreat]

B*llsh*t. This post has destroyed any cred you had in this arguement, which seemed to be more driven by ideology than experience. I've negotiated union contracts, both as a union member and, in other cases, as a producer. HTF do you think union members vote to ratify contracts? They know exactly what the pay scale is! Or do you think employers have no idea what they have negotiated? Idiot!!!

He's referring to companies' efforts to keep individual compensation of non-CBA covered employees private by discouraging discussion among the non-CBA employees. It's a pretty common (and illegal) practice. Obviously in the case of a CBA, everyone knows the scales. Same thing when I worked for USG, I had current DOL prevailing wage determinations for every classification in every geographic area where I had a task order under management.

[Uncle Sparky]

I stand corrected, brother, and apologize to the idiot.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Lol. that reminds of the old (true) story back at the start of the Lincoln administration when Thaddeus Stevens, senior Senator from Pennsylvania said of Simon Cameron (former junior Senator from Pennsylvania until Lincoln made him Secretary of War) "I can say that Simon Cameron would not steal a red hot stove." Cameron demanded an apology, and Stevens obliged, stating "I apologize for saying that Simon Cameron would not steal a red hot stove. (Stevens' emphasis)