Freedom of Choice

No, I'm not talking about the right to have, or not have, an abortion. I'm talking about the right to join, or not join, a union.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has signed a law that allows people the freedom to join, or to not join, unions. Specifically, the law that would make the payment of union dues voluntary for private-sector unions and most public-sector unions (police and firefighters would be exempt).

Democrats are up-in-arms over this, calling it a "right-wing tactic". But is it really? How is giving people a choice a "right-wing tactic"?

In my view, forcing people to do something against their free will, whether it's not having the right to get an abortion, or not having the right to marry someone of their same sex, or not having the right to join a union, is "right-wing". As a left-wing liberal, I'm always in favor of allowing people the freedom of choice.

Fine. Then those people who don't want to join a union should not be entitled to any of the protections and benefits that unions win for employees.

So if you're working for company ABC, which is unionised but you opt out, are you willing to do the same job for less pay and benefits?

So if you're working for company ABC, which is unionised but you opt out, are you willing to do the same job for less pay and benefits?

You had better be because that's the purpose of right-to-work laws. They are so misnamed! What they are is "right to hire unrepresented employees at as close to Chinese wages as possible" laws. For proof of that all you have to do is look at what has happened to wage rates in the laughably named "right to work for poverty level wages" states.

As for freedom of choice, what happened to the employer and employee union's freedom of choice to enter into a collective agreement that provides all employees share the cost of representation. The government is really interfereing with the both sides right to decide how their workplace will be organized and governed.

Taken one step further, Why should your legislative representative represent you if s/he doesn't feel like it?

What they are is "right to hire unrepresented employees at as close to Chinese wages as possible" laws.

Exactly. It just gives the employer ALL rights, and the employee NONE. Really should be called "Right to exploit and discard without penalty" laws.

Sci fi Guy, in most instances no one can be forced to join the union. But you can opt out of the union and pay what is called an agency fee, equal to union dues, to the union for representing you. Then all workers, union and non union, enjoy the same wages and benefits. You can get a part of your contribution refunded, the part that is used for political lobbying, but you have to ask for it.

Right to work states undermine that process by allowing workers to opt out of the union, not pay the agency fee, and by paying the non union workers less with few or no benefits.

Why anyone other than corporate raider thinks this is good for them is a mystery to me. You are paid significantly less and have fewer benefits and less recourse if you are exploited but you don't have to pay $100 a month to the union. In what way is that a good deal? It doesn't result in more jobs, it just puts more money in the shareholders' pocket.

it just puts more money in the shareholders' pocket.

Not even that, recently.
All it does is allow for huge executive bonuses and golden parachutes.

In reference to freedom to join unions it's just double-speak for "finally busting unions through the back door".

More allusions to sodomy.

I need to have some serious words with your wife aboot your dirty mind.

Hey, don't blame me for your words.

If you opt out of joining the union, then you negotiate with the employer what your wages shall be, and what benefits you shall get.

This is no different than what I did when I interviewed for my current job.

The employer might be willing to pay more than union wages, or less. It all comes down to how much the employee is worth to the company. If the employee is very skilled at what they do, then the employer won't want to lose a good employee and the employer will pay them well in order to retain them. If the employer is only a mediocre worker, then the employer will pay them less.

Employees having freedom of choice, and employees being paid what they are worth. This seems fair to me.

Time to take off those rose colored glasses.

What rose-colored glasses? What I just described is what the rest of us in the free world do.

When I interviewed for my job, they made me an offer. I said, "No, I am worth more than that. I know how to do this and this." And they decided to give me what I asked for. My company also gives me benefits, such as medical, dental, and life insurance. I did not get these benefits because some union negotiated them for me -- I got them because no one would ever agree to work for a company that did not offer benefits.

If I did not like the salary they offered me, then I was free to go find a job somewhere else.

This might come as culture shock to those of you who belong to unions, but this is how things are in the rest of the free world.

Anyway, the issue here is not whether unions are good or bad, but whether employees should have the right to choose whether they wish to belong to a union or not.

All those in favor of Freedom of Choice, raise your hand.

All those opposed?

Funny how Democrats say they favor Freedom of Choice when it comes to abortion, but oppose it when it comes to joining labor unions.

They have all kinds of choices. Lawyers aren't required to join unions, one can choose to be a lawyer. Soldiers aren't unionized, one can join the army. Salespeople typically aren't unionized...get a job selling used cars. A person can become self-employed.

Tons of choices.

This might come as culture shock to those of you who belong to unions, but this is how things are in the rest of the free world.

I've never been a union member - never.
It would appear that you haven't spent much time in "the rest of the free world".

SciFi, I'm surprised you don't seem to recognize that unions have been and remain an important champion for millions of workers [especially in the trades] who are not in a position to negotiate individually for themselves ~ there is definitely power in numbers ~ and especially with unfettered "capitalism", unions make sure workers do not take the hit in the frenzy for profits and executive enormous salaries and perks ~ there are also big differences in skill sets and responsibilities between "wage/hourly workers" and "salaried employees" ~ while those skill sets and responsibilities are valued differently, both are needed ~

I'm not a TV junkie, but one night I stumbled across "Undercover Boss" ~ the program has a different CEO each week "go undercover as one of its own company employees" ~ and each week, we see how quickly change is implemented once the CEO gets a taste of his/her own employee policies and working conditions ~ sounds simplistic but the show is well done ~ and, more importantly, sends a message ~

Sooz

did not get these benefits because some union negotiated them for me -- I got them because no one would ever agree to work for a company that did not offer benefits.

Millions of people work in jobs that have no benefits. Ask any coal miner, construction laborer, assembly line worker how well they did bargaining for themselves. When there is one shop in town, one local industry, many people don't have the luxury of being able to turn down a job and hold out for something better. Collective bargaining assured that everyone was protected and everyone had the right to work, even those who wanted safety, reasonable wages, and benefits.

It's really pitiful that you people are here justifying that people should be forced to join unions, whether they want to or not.

You're really no better than the Republicans who want to force people to do or not do certain things because they believe deeply in their principles.

You're all hypocrites.

I'm not saying that unions should be outlawed. I'm here saying that people should have the right to join one if they want to, or to not join one if they don't want to.

Freedom of Choice means Freedom of Choice.

Is the English language a mystery to you?
No one denied you or anyone else any choice whatsoever and no one is even attempting to deny you or anyone else any choice whatsoever... unless you see stating some of the positive aspects of unions as an attempt to take away choice.
IMO, you are the one acting like a "Republican" with your all or nothing approach to most issues.

Define "choice". An employee can exercise his freedoms by choosing not to work in a unionized company while that company and it's employees through their union can exercise their freedom to enter into collective agreements which require all members to belong to and pay dues to the union. Under your rosy scenario the only one who gets to exercise his freedoms is some guy who doesn't even work for the employer yet.

If right to work laws are so "employee" friendly, why is it always employer Associations, etc. who are pushing for them? I don't see a lot of employees or employee groups asking for them.

Since Unions started to decline in the U.S., real wages have stagnated and reversed. It has got to the point where last week Apple said it was bringing some manufacturing into the United States with one of their reasons being that they can now hire American workers as cheaply as Chinese workers. Being able to pay poverty level wages is certainly big business' idea of freedom. What surprises me is that anybody having to live with them thinks they are a good idea.

SciFi, I suggest you reread queenie's #7 post above ~

Sooz