In a right to work state an employer can also terminate your employment without telling you why. I am all for supporting unions even though I have never worked where there as been one but my mom did for well over 35 years. She was a member of the Teamsters Union.

It would be easier for all of us to continue expressing differing points of view if there no namecalling.

I've been in unions and not in unions. I now work in a non union place and someone who does the same job as I do with the same title and responsibilities is a contracted employee who makes $20,000/yr less than I do with no benefits. I am a full time vested employee with good benefits. I'm glad that I am not she. The union jobs I have held far exceeded the non union jobs I have held in benefits, pay, and working conditions.

No one ever forced me to join a union.They simply charged a nominal fee for the services provided.I could have to chosen to work somewhere else. Some people don't have those choices available to them.

You always have freedom of choice whether to work in a union shop or not, whether to join the union or pay an agency fee for their services.

The only one here who is not pro choice is Sci Fi Guy, who is fooled by the title of "right to work" as implying a choice that one would not otherwise have.

I believe as years, decades, centuries pass employees tend to forget what employment meant in the past and how unions changed the picture for all.
I've never been in a union but I sure do know that my father did not have the vacation time, the benefits, the work hours, the over time pay, out of the goodness of his employer's heart.
The unions and their members fought for that, many with their blood or life.
Without that little power unions have we'll be right back to the whims of employers.
That's the GOP's wet dream. Of course they have to obfuscate their goal with cute slogans like "freedom of choice". If you don't remember the past or don't know about it you might fall for that ruse.

Oskar wrote:



Actually, that's not true. In most states, if a company is unionized, the employees working there ARE denied the choice to join or not join the union. In fact, the law and the unions DO deny people a choice.

It would seem that English is a mystery to YOU. I suggest you look up the word "choice" in the dictionary since you obviously do not understand what that word means.

---

My position is that I support unions, and I support what they do. However, I do not believe that employees should be forced to join a union against their free will.

I am surprised by the lot of you here that you are defending the practice of forcing people to do something against their free will.

"Freedom of Choice" is not a left wing/right wing thing. It's something we should all want and strive for.

Just because the particular issue (unions) is something that we liberals like is not a good reason for us to be hypocrites. Either we believe in Freedom of Choice, or we don't. We cannot pick and chose which causes it shall apply for and which ones it shall not. If we are principled, then it has to apply to all situations.

Many of you here are defending unions. And I agree with you. We should have unions. Where I disagree with you is that all employees MUST JOIN THE UNION, whether they want to or not.

What state do you live in? Here in California where I live, which is called a "Right to Work state," people also have that option.

All Michigan Governor Rick Snyder did was sign a law that made Michigan have that same right. The unions are protesting against that. They do not want people to have the right to join or not join a union. Now I am a Democrat and I support unions. But in this particular case, I think the unions are wrong. They want to be like Communists and force people to join their unions. Sorry, but I refuse to support Communism and dictatorships.

Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. People have forgotten the times when someone could walk up to your boss and say, "I'll do that guy's job for a hundred less a week than he does it", and he'd get the job. They forget the days when workers could be fired for whistle blowing about breaches of safety standards or even criminal wrongdoing. when women could be fired for not sleeping with the boss. Unions are the reason we have workplace standards, and have historically fought the fight for laws and standards that protect union and non union workers. While I think there are times when labour unions have to change tactics and move into the 21st century, I think now is EXACTLY when labor needs to be organized and vocal. NOW, while the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, and when the one percent is maximizing their control over the wealth, policies, politics and even lives of our nations.

We need unions now possibly more than we EVER have before.

However, I do not believe that employees should be forced to join a union against their free will.

They aren't and never have been. Work elsewhere.

I am surprised by the lot of you here that you are defending the practice of forcing people to do something against their free will.

If you are referring to me, where did I do that?

Where I disagree with you is that all employees MUST JOIN THE UNION, whether they want to or not.

In which country does that happen?

Either we believe in Freedom of Choice, or we don't. We cannot pick and chose which causes it shall apply for and which ones it shall not. If we are principled, then it has to apply to all situations.

See? There's that all or nothing attitude. How well did it work out for GWB?

For example, should we have the death penalty or not? if so, where would it apply?

Time out, SciFi!
If you define the Unions as "like communists" then please define those who quit paying their union dues but still want to reap the gains the Unions and their left-over membership achieve.

You are right, of course. Once you enter a union shop you have to join or you can't work there. But you do get to vote within the union on priorities and decisions. I think of it this way.

When you enter a community, you agree to follow it's rules. You may not have agreed to the decision to create a local government. You may not agree with everything that government does with your taxes. But the organization, the social contract, existed before you got there, so you follow the rules. If you don't like them, you, as a member of that community, get to vote them out at the next election. And you get the benefit of those rules and laws that are passed and enforced--like protection from robbery, and community safety.

Unions are the same thing. They are democratically elected. They hold discussions and votes to decide their madates and priorities. But you don't get to wish them out of existance when you enter that workplace. The same as a government. And you get the collective benefit of that negotiating power.

Well, that is a great analogy, Green Apple.

The thing is, it's a job -- not your home community. If the union is doing a wonderful job for all the employees, then there's no reason why anyone would choose to opt out. If people do opt out, then it's because they feel they can get a better deal on their own.

Obama spoke tonight on "the need for change".

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... s-must-end

One thing we need to change is all the fear-mongering and intimidation by both political parties and the unions whose only goal to remain in power instead of moving towards uniting us all and doing what is in the best interests for all of us.

Yes, let's leave the union and sing Kumbaja with the Koch brothers instead.

Unions are ELECTED. Their representitives are ELECTED by their members. If members don't like the people who are in power, vote for someone else, or run yourself.

As for negotiating a better contract on your own--remember that your negotiating starting place is where it is because your coworkers organized and raised the bar to a certain point. Taking those gains and then wishing to try and improve on them for only yourself is....well...it's morally pretty shaky.

Remember: The union isn't some foreign entity come over to take away your freedom. The union is YOU. Your votes, your representitives. the same as the government isn't some crazy group of nazis here to take over. In a perfect world, the government is your elected representitives. If you don't like them, elect someone else.

"One thing we need to change is all the fear-mongering and intimidation by both political parties and the unions whose only goal to remain in power instead of moving towards uniting us all and doing what is in the best interests for all of us."

Scifi, your claim, that labor unions' only goal is power, doesn't square with my experience at all. Why do you believe that? What experience leads you to that conclusion?

If you were to undo all that the labor unions have done in this country, it would be a poorer, bleaker country. What we now think of as the middle class wouldn't exist. No blue collar workers owning nice homes and sending their kids to college [i]out of their wages.[i] No 5-day work weeks, or 40-hour weeks.

You ask how some of us can justify supporting labor unions...do you believe that workers ought to have the power to bargain collectively, that workers ought to have actual power in their workplace? Or do you believe that companies such as Ford or GM or Alcoa are just someone's private property and they can do with employees as they like, take it or leave it?

I've been in sales most of my adult life, or in tech jobs that were not union. Wife has been a member of union her whole professional career. I really take personal exception, it's a personal affront, the idea that her union's "only goal is power", as though she and her fellow nurses were corrupt and seek power for the sake of being powerful.

Having said that, though, power is necessary for them to accomplish anything, power that they have collectively and could never have individually. That's the purpose of "right-to-work" legislation, to undo the collective power of wage-earners in this country. I am against that.

When your boss gives you an order do you have a choice?
If you work for someone else and accept their money you have given up your choices anyway.
In view of your previous conclusion, does that not make you a hypocrite by your own definition?

If you don't want to be in a union shop, then don't apply for the job.

How's that for "freedom of choice"?

Grampatom, I read with interest that your wife is a nurse and is a member of a union--if ever a profession needed union representation, it is the hospital workers, including not only nurses, but auxillary personnel...thanks to the ANA and other political lobbies, there has been some improvement in the patient to RN ratio, but unfortunately, the patient to PCA ratio has worsened (bedside care) with a ratio as high as 24: 1--with the PCA responsible for the safety and bedside care of as many as 24 pts...usually for long 12 hr shifts...sometimes a pca is assigned to "sit" with one pt who is high risk and they are placed in a room for 12 hrs sometimes with no breaks at all because there is no one to relieve them...add to these conditions mandatory overtime, or worse, being "cancelled" without pay if the grid does not call for the PCA (like in times of low census) and the work conditions vary from being worked to death to being scheduled "on call" which constitutes of a whole $3 for an entire day of being "on call"--and the worker does not know from scheduled work day to work day what their plight will be....these conditions exist nation wide in hospitals where there is no union representation...I have been in hospitals where the union tried to come in, only to see the nurses reject the union out of fear of reprisal if they voted for union representation...those nurses who were brave enough to speak out pro-union were eventually put under such pressure after the losing union vote that they either quit or were fired eventually for of course reasons other than their activity on behalf of the union...through intimidation the "right to work" hospitals manage to keep the unions out and their cost of labor down...except of course at the top...
the delivery of bedside care on some busy med-surg floors is so rushed that I never permitted either of my last 2 husbands to be patients without me at their bedside--and I advise anyone who is going to have a loved one in the hospital to have someone at the bedside 24/7 while the patient is in acute care. These are my observations of "right to work" hospitals.

Had it not been for the NSTU (Nova Scotia Teachers Union) we'd be 50-100k porrer today due to legal fees and may have lost against the school board for my wife's illegal dismissal.
Instead, she won due to the legal representation her union dues bought her.
Nice insurance policy, eh?

oskar, you and your wife both know we were thrilled with the victory ~ and, ftr, I think your estimate of legal fees might be on the low side ~ but just out of curiosity, can that work both ways? ~ what I mean is, if your wife had been at fault, would the union have defended her?

Sooz

if your wife had been at fault, would the union have defended her?

I honestly don't know.
I know the union has taken on some cases very reluctantly.

They might not have had a choice. Unions are faced with a duty of fair representation under the various provincial labour codes. They may not like the cause of the worker they have to represent but, if s/he has a legitimate argument, they are compelled by law to take the case forward.

Yes, that makes sense ~ but what if s/he is in fact guilty-as-charged? ~ would the union be compelled to provide a defense?

Sooz

jim's the expert here, sooz.
Truth be told the union was reluctant at first. Mind you, it was mostly due to the crappy liaison officer assigned to the local.
After a chat with jim, who gave me a very concise but effective overview of "duty of fair representation" we addressed a rather terse letter to the union's legal counsel.
The proverbial hit the fan in a real hurry amidst a flurry of denials by said legal counsel.
My wife got some real "more-than-fair representation" very quickly. I guess we pushed some sensitive buttons.

I was on our union executive for a few years when I was working. You'd be amazed out how often the president would get phone calls from people asking for the union's help when they got in a dispute with management but, when asked, revealed that they weren't actually members. It was like they expected all the benefits of union membership, but just didn't want to pay the dues.

As for needing the union, in the time I was on the executive we took our employer to the industrial court 13 times for breaching the employment contract they had agreed to. We won every case ....

Besides, "freedom of choice" is one of those cute slogans that sounds good but doesn't actually stand up to serious examination.
Ever seen the movie "Sophie's Choice"?