Patters

Is it wrong for players to have an organization that negotiates for them? Is it wrong for other kinds of workers, especially government employees?

chicowalker

Any claim that unions are "good" or "bad" is an overgeneralization.

But of course workers should have the right to unionize. My own only issues are (i) why any employer should be required to negotiate with a union if they choose not to and (ii) why any employee should be required to join a union if they don't want to.

Patters

You're not against unions, but your questions basically imply you want to do all you can to get rid of unions.

(i) Businesses negotiate with unions because a majority of workers elected to have a union represent them. In theory if the business bypasses the union it will face consequences in the form of slowdowns, strikes, bad publicity, and legal action.

(ii) You cannot have unions if you offer people two options (a) to get the benefits for free or (b) to get the benefits for a fee. It's an unworkable business model. It would be as if the employer said, "You have your choice between free health care or the same health care for $100/month." Which would you choose?

chicowalker

I didn't imply that at all. You mistakenly inferred it, it seems.

Re #1: you and I agree -- so how, exactly, would that do away with unions?

Re #2: why would non-union members necessarily get the same benefits?

Patters

1. The laws have been watered down over the years making it easier for employers to work around unions and making labor unions less effective, most significantly the Taft-Hartley Act. If we make it easier for employers to work around unions then unions will only lose value.

2. Employers always give the same benefits, at least at shops where union and non union workers coexist. In fact, where I work I'm not in the union, but get the same wages and benefits as my peers who are in a union. (For some reason, we have union and non union divisions where I work; I happen to be in a non union one.) In fact, one reason some non union shops pay well is to keep unions out.

chicowalker

You've lost me. I don't know how this fits your earlier comment.

I agreed with what you stated earlier.

As for the Taft-Hartley Act, from a quick perusal at wikipedia, I don't agree with parts of it -- or any bill -- that prohibit or limit employees' ability to strike, etc. But I also don't think parties should be compelled to negotiate with one another.


If the employer chooses to give everybody the same benefits, so be it -- it's the employer's choice.

Then the employees are free to choose whether to join the union, or remain in it. And the union has the responsibility of convincing the employees of its worth. If it can't do that effectively, I don't see why the government should step in and take care of that potential free rider for them.

The union could also negotiate for a requirement that its members get some form of preferential treatment -- a pretty concrete reason for employees to join them.

Patters

Businesses are free to do what they want, but there will be consequences. They can ignore the union, and the union might go on strike. They can try to negotiate around the union, and the union might go on strike as well as identify legal strategies. I don't think anyone goes to jail if the management refuses to negotiate with the union. In fact, in the NFL right now what we're seeing is a lockout, where the management is doing exactly what you're talking about, and the union has actually temporarily disbanded in order to use to other legal strategies. There's no difference really between what unions do and what corporations or shareholders do. There is a complex set of laws and rulings that govern commerce, including labor management relations.

Places drop unions all the time. That's why union membership has declined over time. As companies started workers better, the need for unions decreased. Nonetheless, there are many low-paid industries and industries under siege by shareholders demanding greater profitability, where unions serve a useful purpose. A union cannot form if the people affected do not have to join. A union derives its power by having a strong membership. What you're talking about are professional organizations, where you have the option of joining or not. Unions are a different class designed to leverage labor against the vastly superior power that management always holds in our system.

chicowalker

If I'm wrong about this, then my initial point that companies should be free to refuse to negotiate with unions is moot. But I've understood that cvcompanies -- at least of a certain size -- were legally required to at least negotiate with unions. I could be wrong about that.


I understand the theory of why a union would form, and I'm not questioning unions' purpose.

But none of this really addresses anything I said in my last post.

Patters

They may be legally required (especially when it's been negotiated as part of the collective bargaining agreement), but it's way more complex, because they can have sham negotiations. That's part of what's going on in the NFL right now. Many years ago, I read an enormous amount on this stuff, and I don't really remember it, except that there are a lot of legal intricacies.

Well, earlier you seemed to say that a democratic vote of workers to form a union should only require that those who want to be in the union pay up. I believe corporations engage in unfair business practices when they sell things at a loss to drive out competition. One way to drive out unions is to tell workers that even if they are not members of the union, they will still get whatever union employees get. Would you pay for something you could get for free? Do you want to pay for freeloaders? Obviously, so called right to work laws, which corporate pawns have been championing for years, are designed to discourage people from joining unions. But, maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?

Real World

Hmm...so how are businesses free to do what they want? So GM could tell the UAW to beat it tomorrow if they wanted to?

Hmm...so they are free to do....but there will be consequences. Sound like blackmail to me.

As I understand it once a shop votes to go union the buisness is compelled to negotiate with them till hell or high water. I have no issues with a union at all. They do indeed provide certain benefits to both businesses and employees. Like Chico, I simply don't like the fact that a company is forced to do business with one if they don't want to. Once a contract is up, either of the entities in question should have the right to walk away.

I used to use this HVAC contractor, who's relationship with us started between his dad and mine. Decades of business. His small shop voted to go union, and it simply priced him out of consideration. In talking to him he explained to me how he was more or less helpless even though it was his business. He spent in upwards of $100k in legal fees trying to thwart the assault on what was a family held business. He said in the end there simply was no option for him. Either close, sell, or take the kick to the nuts and move forward. If what he explained to be is indeed how it went, that's complete BS. Sure, go ahead and vote to go union, but why should a business owner be forced to accept that? It was his business, not the employees business. It just didn't seem right to me.

I remember when the Local 22 came to my job and tried to comvince me to go union. The guy started telling me how they would harass, picket, disrupt, and destroy to get me work. I wish I recorded the conversations we had. I was 25 at the time and that was a genuine learning experience.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897