Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Right to Work
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Right to Work; let's discuss it again
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 19 2012, 12:19 PM (197 Views)
Mr Gray Jan 21 2012, 06:14 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 04:52 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 01:06 PM
Additionally, let's go back to the core subject here...the actual legislation. If the Union is as great as it claims to be, why can't it stand on it's own....why does it need to force people to join it by law?
I have no problem with people not being forced to join so long as they do not reap the benefits that the union produces. If not being in a union is so great, then why do so many in situations where union membership is not mandatory join?
I'm not saying it is or isn't great...if people join when they aren't forced to, then that Union must offer some benefit to them, which outweighs the cost in their situation...and I think that's great. If you have no problem with people not being forced to join, as you just said, then which way will you vote if there were a referendum?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 21 2012, 06:19 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 04:55 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 12:55 PM
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 01:21 AM
Mr Gray
Jan 20 2012, 08:21 PM
brumdog44
Jan 20 2012, 04:11 PM
So the ability to have referendums should be dependent not on the importance of the issue but rather on how much advertising money is available? Really?

Secondly, referendums for right to work passed in Oklahoma and Idaho.....so how could that be if it based on advertising money? It passed in Ohio, but the polling numbers on it before it ever had become a possibility to be a referendum were in total balance with what the final results were.
I don't really know why referendums exist to begin with...this is a Republic, but yes a HUGE factor in deciding if something should go to referendum should be how much money each side has to promote their view, because there is no real standard for truth in advertising, and the public can basically be duped simply because one side had enough money to do it.
:facepalm:
Let's get rid of everything that is influenced by money then....wouldn't want to 'dupe' the public. No political advertising during elections because the side with more money can dupe the public more. No advertising for products because the big companies can afford more commercials giving them an unfair advantage.

I find it very strange that you have no problem with the duping practices that predatory credit card companies use but when it comes to political advertising, you have an issue. I guess buyer beware only counts when it profits a company.
credit card companies can't force anything on me by law.
Neither can a referendum on right to work. Nobody says you have to work for a unioned business. If you don't like it, work elsewhere.
correct, but you are missing a point (and deliberately I assume). The business should be able to make that choice (as to force or not to force employees to join the union), not a 3rd party with the help of the force of law.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 21 2012, 09:47 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 06:14 PM
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 04:52 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 01:06 PM
Additionally, let's go back to the core subject here...the actual legislation. If the Union is as great as it claims to be, why can't it stand on it's own....why does it need to force people to join it by law?
I have no problem with people not being forced to join so long as they do not reap the benefits that the union produces. If not being in a union is so great, then why do so many in situations where union membership is not mandatory join?
I'm not saying it is or isn't great...if people join when they aren't forced to, then that Union must offer some benefit to them, which outweighs the cost in their situation...and I think that's great. If you have no problem with people not being forced to join, as you just said, then which way will you vote if there were a referendum?
I said I had no problem with people not being forced to join IF they then do not reap the benefits of being in, i.e. if someone is not in the union and the union negotiates an increase in pay or better benefits, then why should that person gain that reward as well?

But legally, that is NOT the case. Perfect example is a teacher's union in Indiana; teachers are not required to join, and you see very varied percentages of teachers joining from corporation to corporation.

People who do not join are gaining the same benefits of those who do join. Legally if there is a contract issue with an employee who doesn't join the union, the union is forced to fight on behalf of the teacher. That's not just, IMO.

So basically, the teacher's unions in Indiana are already in a right-to-work state. I believe that's true of any Indiana governmental position.

So while you say the union offers benefits to people which outweigh the cost of the situation, you kind of belittle the fact that those paying their dues are in fact not only paying to for their own costs, but the costs of those who are willing to leech off of those that are paying. And while some try to hide behind the 'NEA supports candidates whose positions I do not support', legally anyone can sign off not to pay that portion of their dues. In fact, at my school about half the teachers do just that.

Edited by brumdog44, Jan 21 2012, 09:48 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 22 2012, 06:48 PM Post #19
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 09:47 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 06:14 PM
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 04:52 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 01:06 PM
Additionally, let's go back to the core subject here...the actual legislation. If the Union is as great as it claims to be, why can't it stand on it's own....why does it need to force people to join it by law?
I have no problem with people not being forced to join so long as they do not reap the benefits that the union produces. If not being in a union is so great, then why do so many in situations where union membership is not mandatory join?
I'm not saying it is or isn't great...if people join when they aren't forced to, then that Union must offer some benefit to them, which outweighs the cost in their situation...and I think that's great. If you have no problem with people not being forced to join, as you just said, then which way will you vote if there were a referendum?
I said I had no problem with people not being forced to join IF they then do not reap the benefits of being in, i.e. if someone is not in the union and the union negotiates an increase in pay or better benefits, then why should that person gain that reward as well?

But legally, that is NOT the case. Perfect example is a teacher's union in Indiana; teachers are not required to join, and you see very varied percentages of teachers joining from corporation to corporation.

People who do not join are gaining the same benefits of those who do join. Legally if there is a contract issue with an employee who doesn't join the union, the union is forced to fight on behalf of the teacher. That's not just, IMO.

So basically, the teacher's unions in Indiana are already in a right-to-work state. I believe that's true of any Indiana governmental position.

So while you say the union offers benefits to people which outweigh the cost of the situation, you kind of belittle the fact that those paying their dues are in fact not only paying to for their own costs, but the costs of those who are willing to leech off of those that are paying. And while some try to hide behind the 'NEA supports candidates whose positions I do not support', legally anyone can sign off not to pay that portion of their dues. In fact, at my school about half the teachers do just that.

Brum, I think the Unions should be allowed to ONLY represent and bargain for the employees which they represent. That being said, however, I have questioned, in detail and repeatedly, Matt Lehman (my state rep) http://www.in.gov/h79/, about the actual legislation, and according to him IF an employee opts out of joining the Union the Union must still represent that employee, but may charge a fee for doing so...if the employee doesn't pay the fee, they do not receive representation.

I would prefer that the Union not have to represent him/her at all, however according to Lehman, they are not being forced to let someone "leech" off of them for free.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 22 2012, 07:24 PM Post #20
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jan 22 2012, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 09:47 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 06:14 PM
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 04:52 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 01:06 PM
Additionally, let's go back to the core subject here...the actual legislation. If the Union is as great as it claims to be, why can't it stand on it's own....why does it need to force people to join it by law?
I have no problem with people not being forced to join so long as they do not reap the benefits that the union produces. If not being in a union is so great, then why do so many in situations where union membership is not mandatory join?
I'm not saying it is or isn't great...if people join when they aren't forced to, then that Union must offer some benefit to them, which outweighs the cost in their situation...and I think that's great. If you have no problem with people not being forced to join, as you just said, then which way will you vote if there were a referendum?
I said I had no problem with people not being forced to join IF they then do not reap the benefits of being in, i.e. if someone is not in the union and the union negotiates an increase in pay or better benefits, then why should that person gain that reward as well?

But legally, that is NOT the case. Perfect example is a teacher's union in Indiana; teachers are not required to join, and you see very varied percentages of teachers joining from corporation to corporation.

People who do not join are gaining the same benefits of those who do join. Legally if there is a contract issue with an employee who doesn't join the union, the union is forced to fight on behalf of the teacher. That's not just, IMO.

So basically, the teacher's unions in Indiana are already in a right-to-work state. I believe that's true of any Indiana governmental position.

So while you say the union offers benefits to people which outweigh the cost of the situation, you kind of belittle the fact that those paying their dues are in fact not only paying to for their own costs, but the costs of those who are willing to leech off of those that are paying. And while some try to hide behind the 'NEA supports candidates whose positions I do not support', legally anyone can sign off not to pay that portion of their dues. In fact, at my school about half the teachers do just that.

Brum, I think the Unions should be allowed to ONLY represent and bargain for the employees which they represent. That being said, however, I have questioned, in detail and repeatedly, Matt Lehman (my state rep) http://www.in.gov/h79/, about the actual legislation, and according to him IF an employee opts out of joining the Union the Union must still represent that employee, but may charge a fee for doing so...if the employee doesn't pay the fee, they do not receive representation.

I would prefer that the Union not have to represent him/her at all, however according to Lehman, they are not being forced to let someone "leech" off of them for free.
He is only partially correct on that, I believe. First off, the person IS benefiting from the contract regardless of any type of legal representation....you can't find a single corporation where union and non-unioned teachers have different health care benefits, for instance. In terms of legal representation, while a union member has the benefit to some legal representation that non-union members are not entitled to (i.e., a civil suit from a parent for a situation occurring in the line of work); in cases where contract has been violated, the agreement being violated is an illegal activity because it violates an agreement. The union does NOT have the ability to negotiate one contract for its members and one for non-members and therefore is forced to protect both.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 23 2012, 09:30 AM Post #21
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 22 2012, 07:24 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 22 2012, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 09:47 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 06:14 PM
brumdog44
Jan 21 2012, 04:52 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 21 2012, 01:06 PM
Additionally, let's go back to the core subject here...the actual legislation. If the Union is as great as it claims to be, why can't it stand on it's own....why does it need to force people to join it by law?
I have no problem with people not being forced to join so long as they do not reap the benefits that the union produces. If not being in a union is so great, then why do so many in situations where union membership is not mandatory join?
I'm not saying it is or isn't great...if people join when they aren't forced to, then that Union must offer some benefit to them, which outweighs the cost in their situation...and I think that's great. If you have no problem with people not being forced to join, as you just said, then which way will you vote if there were a referendum?
I said I had no problem with people not being forced to join IF they then do not reap the benefits of being in, i.e. if someone is not in the union and the union negotiates an increase in pay or better benefits, then why should that person gain that reward as well?

But legally, that is NOT the case. Perfect example is a teacher's union in Indiana; teachers are not required to join, and you see very varied percentages of teachers joining from corporation to corporation.

People who do not join are gaining the same benefits of those who do join. Legally if there is a contract issue with an employee who doesn't join the union, the union is forced to fight on behalf of the teacher. That's not just, IMO.

So basically, the teacher's unions in Indiana are already in a right-to-work state. I believe that's true of any Indiana governmental position.

So while you say the union offers benefits to people which outweigh the cost of the situation, you kind of belittle the fact that those paying their dues are in fact not only paying to for their own costs, but the costs of those who are willing to leech off of those that are paying. And while some try to hide behind the 'NEA supports candidates whose positions I do not support', legally anyone can sign off not to pay that portion of their dues. In fact, at my school about half the teachers do just that.

Brum, I think the Unions should be allowed to ONLY represent and bargain for the employees which they represent. That being said, however, I have questioned, in detail and repeatedly, Matt Lehman (my state rep) http://www.in.gov/h79/, about the actual legislation, and according to him IF an employee opts out of joining the Union the Union must still represent that employee, but may charge a fee for doing so...if the employee doesn't pay the fee, they do not receive representation.

I would prefer that the Union not have to represent him/her at all, however according to Lehman, they are not being forced to let someone "leech" off of them for free.
He is only partially correct on that, I believe. First off, the person IS benefiting from the contract regardless of any type of legal representation....you can't find a single corporation where union and non-unioned teachers have different health care benefits, for instance. In terms of legal representation, while a union member has the benefit to some legal representation that non-union members are not entitled to (i.e., a civil suit from a parent for a situation occurring in the line of work); in cases where contract has been violated, the agreement being violated is an illegal activity because it violates an agreement. The union does NOT have the ability to negotiate one contract for its members and one for non-members and therefore is forced to protect both.
1) I think the Unions absolutely should be able to negotiate seperate contracts for their Union employees vs. the employees who have opted out. If the Union employees are getting a better deal, there should be plenty of motivation for the non-union guys to join.

2) If, as you say, #1 is an impossibility, let's take a look at it. Company "X" has 100 employees. They get together and discuss "organizing" against management to raise their salaries. 80% of those employees agree to organize, pay dues, hire a negotiator...etc, and they succeed. The other 20% of employees gain the benefit without paying into the system.

3 years later the contract is up and it's time to negotiate again, but during the time another 40% of the employees have decided to opt out, leaving only 40% left in the Union, and not enough resourced to have the same success that they previously had, and thus their wages increase at a much lower rate.

Wouldn't that server as a classic example of a free market version of the Unions, meaning that those 60% who opted out, now realize that it hurt them financially to do so, and thus encourages them to join again and not opt-out this time?

On the other side, if their wages increase at a strong rate anyway, and 60% of the employees aren't organized, they may then make the determination that the Union was of no help to them to begin with.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 23 2012, 04:37 PM Post #22
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
The biggest problem with your example is that it all hinges on the ability of union and non-unioned employees having different contracts.

There are obviously two different union situations -- closed shops, which have required 100% union memberships and open shops, which do not have required membership. In the open shops, so long as more than 50% of the employees belong to the union, they are the representing body in negotiations. It's not important to your overall example, but in the example you gave where there is only 40% of the people in unions, they do not have the power to negotiate for the group.

The problem right now is that as long as non-union members gain the same benefit as union despite not paying fees, it's not a question of it being an individual benefit to join....rather it becomes a case of whether a person is willing to pay their fair share toward negotiations. The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jan 23 2012, 04:44 PM Post #23
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 04:37 PM
The biggest problem with your example is that it all hinges on the ability of union and non-unioned employees having different contracts.

There are obviously two different union situations -- closed shops, which have required 100% union memberships and open shops, which do not have required membership. In the open shops, so long as more than 50% of the employees belong to the union, they are the representing body in negotiations. It's not important to your overall example, but in the example you gave where there is only 40% of the people in unions, they do not have the power to negotiate for the group.

The problem right now is that as long as non-union members gain the same benefit as union despite not paying fees, it's not a question of it being an individual benefit to join....rather it becomes a case of whether a person is willing to pay their fair share toward negotiations. The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it.
"The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it." - Brum



Not flaming at all, I've been reading along on this thread to understand the issues a little better. Just curious as to where your above statement came from. Are there stats on that kind of thing?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 23 2012, 05:55 PM Post #24
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Jan 23 2012, 04:44 PM
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 04:37 PM
The biggest problem with your example is that it all hinges on the ability of union and non-unioned employees having different contracts.

There are obviously two different union situations -- closed shops, which have required 100% union memberships and open shops, which do not have required membership. In the open shops, so long as more than 50% of the employees belong to the union, they are the representing body in negotiations. It's not important to your overall example, but in the example you gave where there is only 40% of the people in unions, they do not have the power to negotiate for the group.

The problem right now is that as long as non-union members gain the same benefit as union despite not paying fees, it's not a question of it being an individual benefit to join....rather it becomes a case of whether a person is willing to pay their fair share toward negotiations. The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it.
"The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it." - Brum



Not flaming at all, I've been reading along on this thread to understand the issues a little better. Just curious as to where your above statement came from. Are there stats on that kind of thing?
What I meant to say was that a huge proportion of those who don't join unions in open shops do so because they can get the benefits without paying the dues....not that there is a huge number of people in open shops who don't join, just that among those who do not, gaining benefits without paying the cost is an overriding factor. Of this is going to vary on situation, but from personal experience I can tell you that those who have not joined unions that I have been have no qualms accepting the benefits gained, whether it be in union negotiated wage or fringe benefits, yet don't have a problem with not paying for the gain but paying their fair share of dues.

Let me give you an example -- which is of course anecdotal, but nonetheless -- in Indiana, we use to have 'fair share', which meant that if someone did not wish to join the union in an open shop, they could take the portion that was allotted to negotiations and have it paid toward charity. This has since been stricken from the books, but during this time we had a teacher who would write a check to the Y.M.C.A. for this amount. It was then found out that he was actually not donating this money -- he was paying for a membership to use their athletic facilities.

In this manner, I think almost all conservatives would agree -- too many people are gaining government benefits because they know that they can do so without paying the costs.
Edited by brumdog44, Jan 23 2012, 06:06 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 24 2012, 08:13 AM Post #25
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 04:37 PM
The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it.
Unions are private organizations, and that is the risk that they take brum........if the number of employees who opt out and becomes too large, the Union would threaten to pull out, and then those employees would have to make the decision to start paying in to protect their wages, or let the Union pull out and trust that they can get better wages on their own. They should not be forced by law to join if they don't want to, and the Union can make their own choice as to if they still want to work in that environment for the employees who did join.

"leeching" occurs in the workplace every day, and has nothing to do with the Union. There are slackers in every department that benefit from the hard work or talent of others in their department or company. Go to any construction jobsite and tell me if everyone is pulling equal weight.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 25 2012, 05:53 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jan 24 2012, 08:13 AM
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 04:37 PM
The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it.
Unions are private organizations, and that is the risk that they take brum........if the number of employees who opt out and becomes too large, the Union would threaten to pull out, and then those employees would have to make the decision to start paying in to protect their wages, or let the Union pull out and trust that they can get better wages on their own. They should not be forced by law to join if they don't want to, and the Union can make their own choice as to if they still want to work in that environment for the employees who did join.

"leeching" occurs in the workplace every day, and has nothing to do with the Union. There are slackers in every department that benefit from the hard work or talent of others in their department or company. Go to any construction jobsite and tell me if everyone is pulling equal weight.
Then remove the law in which the union is forced to bargain for members and non-members and non-members receive those benefits. Seriously, are you in favor of private organizations being forced to represent those who don't join?

Your leeching workplace analogy is completely erroneous. I assume that you have fired dead weight in departments that as a whole were operating well. The construction jobsite issue you are talking about deals with one of two things along with the person being a lazy ass -- either a badly negotiated contract with the union or an unwillingness to go through the paper trail to do something about it.

Don't assume that union members want lazy workers protected......only the lazy ones do. But if ownership isn't willing to take the steps to show that behavior -- what are we supposed to do?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 25 2012, 08:04 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 25 2012, 05:53 PM
Mr Gray
Jan 24 2012, 08:13 AM
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 04:37 PM
The fact is that there is a huge number of people in open shops that don't join the union simply because financially they still gain the benefits of membership without paying for it.
Unions are private organizations, and that is the risk that they take brum........if the number of employees who opt out and becomes too large, the Union would threaten to pull out, and then those employees would have to make the decision to start paying in to protect their wages, or let the Union pull out and trust that they can get better wages on their own. They should not be forced by law to join if they don't want to, and the Union can make their own choice as to if they still want to work in that environment for the employees who did join.

"leeching" occurs in the workplace every day, and has nothing to do with the Union. There are slackers in every department that benefit from the hard work or talent of others in their department or company. Go to any construction jobsite and tell me if everyone is pulling equal weight.
Then remove the law in which the union is forced to bargain for members and non-members and non-members receive those benefits. Seriously, are you in favor of private organizations being forced to represent those who don't join?

Your leeching workplace analogy is completely erroneous. I assume that you have fired dead weight in departments that as a whole were operating well. The construction jobsite issue you are talking about deals with one of two things along with the person being a lazy ass -- either a badly negotiated contract with the union or an unwillingness to go through the paper trail to do something about it.

Don't assume that union members want lazy workers protected......only the lazy ones do. But if ownership isn't willing to take the steps to show that behavior -- what are we supposed to do?
The Unions aren't forced to represent anybody brum. Think about this. The Union goes in to represent a group knowing that not everyone is "buying" what they "selling", but those that don't buy may benefit in some ways from those who do. Then the Union takes it a step further and asks the government to force the rest to also loin against their will, and eventually, courtesy of generous donations, the government complies.

Sound fair? Not to me
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 25 2012, 08:42 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Brum, I think the Unions should be allowed to ONLY represent and bargain for the employees which they represent.[/quote]Funny, you said that you believe that unions should be allowed to ONLY represent and bargain for the employees which they represent, you completely backpedal now.

Unions bargain for benefits. Those benefits are gained by all.

Simple yes/no question: if union membership is open -- which means that workers are not required to jion the union -- is a law a just one that forces the union to bargain for the benefits of non-union members?
Edited by brumdog44, Jan 25 2012, 08:50 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 26 2012, 09:27 AM Post #29
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 25 2012, 08:42 PM
Brum, I think the Unions should be allowed to ONLY represent and bargain for the employees which they represent.
Funny, you said that you believe that unions should be allowed to ONLY represent and bargain for the employees which they represent, you completely backpedal now.

Unions bargain for benefits. Those benefits are gained by all.

Simple yes/no question: if union membership is open -- which means that workers are not required to jion the union -- is a law a just one that forces the union to bargain for the benefits of non-union members?[/quote]not backpedaling at all...just dealing with the situation as you laid it out.

Answer to your question: no

Good thing is, no such law exists. Unions aren't forced to bargain for anyone...they choose to bargain for a group that wishes to be represented in bargaining. If others, who choose not to join, benefit as an indirect byproduct of the Union's bargaining, so what? It is not their fault that the union made the choice to bargain. They are not forcing the Union to bargain for them, so why should they inversely be forced to join the union?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 27 2012, 02:01 AM Post #30
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
When you decide to join the real world like the rest of us, expect a response. Until then, phasers set on ignore.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:51 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy