Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

no vote
I really do NOT KNOW what is going on.
If employers treat their employees with dignity and respect, then the unions are out of business, both public and private.
Conservatives and Liberals , you know what the key words are, but do you know how to employ them ?

Fletch said:

Then if you want to work for a union shop go to where one already exists and dont impose one on my company.

Click to expand...

Impose? You're also free to argue for one, and if accepted, become a union shop. That is choice.

Boo Radley said:

Impose? You're also free to argue for one, and if accepted, become a union shop. That is choice.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't an employer hire some workers from one union, some more workers from another union, and even more workers directly as individuals?

Centinel said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't an employer hire some workers from one union, some more workers from another union, and even more workers directly as individuals?

Click to expand...

The thing with unions is that they can't work for just a portion of the employee group. I'm not sure why, but whatever they negotiate goes to everyone. So, in that situation, it would be very cheap for all workers to not join but gain the benefits. While we're not a union where I work, we do have a bargining group that collects dues from members (we give scholorships with the money). Whatever we gain goes to everyone, regardless of being a member or not. Some feel that is quite unfair.

Centinel said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't an employer hire some workers from one union, some more workers from another union, and even more workers directly as individuals?

Click to expand...

I believe that some places do that, but... from what I have heard it almost never works out well. What you are suggesting is adult behavior, and adults seldom act adult-like.

Centinel said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't an employer hire some workers from one union, some more workers from another union, and even more workers directly as individuals?

Click to expand...

Is that the case? In Britain, you have the employment right to be a union member, or not, and an employer may not discriminate against you for being either. You can even choose to be a member of a union which your employer doesn't recognise for negotiations, though why you would want to belong to a union that couldn't represent you is beyond me.

TurtleDude said:

more crap-its much harder to fire a public sector employee-even a non union one than someone in the private sector. Public sector unions are often a problem. just ask the Post Office

Click to expand...

Nahh, in order to fire a union employee; pubic of private, there has to be 'just cause'. It's that requirement that gives employers such a hard time. If it's just cause, a hearing is usually not even necessary because the business agents won't waste their time.

Boo Radley said:

The thing with unions is that they can't work for just a portion of the employee group. I'm not sure why, but whatever they negotiate goes to everyone. So, in that situation, it would be very cheap for all workers to not join but gain the benefits. While we're not a union where I work, we do have a bargining group that collects dues from members (we give scholorships with the money). Whatever we gain goes to everyone, regardless of being a member or not. Some feel that is quite unfair.

Click to expand...

Regarding the bolded above, why does this have to be? Each contract with an employer could simply apply to those covered under the contract, with other employees being covered under their own employment contracts.

radcen said:

I believe that some places do that, but... from what I have heard it almost never works out well. What you are suggesting is adult behavior, and adults seldom act adult-like.

Click to expand...

I agree with the adults seldom acting adult-like part.

Manc Skipper said:

Is that the case? In Britain, you have the employment right to be a union member, or not, and an employer may not discriminate against you for being either. You can even choose to be a member of a union which your employer doesn't recognise for negotiations, though why you would want to belong to a union that couldn't represent you is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing. I always like to hear how other places run things.

cpwill said:

Lately we have seen Republican and Democrat (though, oddly, only Republicans make news with it) Governors work to save their states from fiscal ruin by curtailing the Public Unions, either in finances or in power. Have the last two years marked the beginning of the end for the Public Sector Union, and will they go the way of the Private Sector Union?

Click to expand...

It is the fate of those who are inexperienced and immature to jump to conclusions based on a particular moment that they believe is forever with us. They do not have the longevity to understand that perspective dictates that things come and go in waves and the tide is sometimes in and sometimes out.. Sometimes the shores are flooded while at other times the harbor appears dry and empty.

I would urge you to read this

WRECKING BALL by Bruce Springsteen

I was raised out of steel here in the swamps of Jersey, some misty years ago
Through the mud and the beer, and the blood and the cheers, I've seen champions come and go
So if you got the guts mister, yeah, if you got the balls
If you think it's your time, then step to the line, and bring on your wrecking ball

Bring on your wrecking ball
Bring on your wrecking ball
Come on and take your best shot, let me see what you got
Bring on your wrecking ball

Now my home's here in these meadowlands where mosquitoes grow big as airplanes
Here where the blood is spilled, the arena's filled, and giants played their games
So raise up your glasses and let me hear your voices call
Because tonight all the dead are here, so bring on your wrecking ball

Bring on your wrecking ball
Bring on your wrecking ball
Come on and take your best shot, let me see what you got
Bring on your wrecking ball

One, two, a one two three four!

Yeah! Hey!

Yeah, we know that come tomorrow, none of this will be here
So hold tight on your anger, you hold tight on your anger
Hold tight to your anger, don't fall to your fears

Now when all this steel and these stories, they drift away to rust
And all our youth and beauty, it's been given to the dust
When the game has been decided and we're burning down the clock
And all our little victories and glories have turned into parking lots
When your best hopes and desires are scattered through the wind
And hard times come, and hard times go
And hard times come, and hard times go
And hard times come, and hard times go
And hard times come, and hard times go
And hard times come, and hard times go
Yeah just to come again

Bring on your wrecking ball
Bring on your wrecking ball
Come on and take your best shot, let me see what you got
Bring on your wrecking ball
Bring on your wrecking ball (bring on your wrecking ball)
Bring on your wrecking ball (bring on your wrecking ball)
Come on and take your best shot, let me see what you got
Bring on your wrecking ball



So bring it on radical right wingers. Bring on that wrecking ball to destroy the 20th century that you hate so much. But just do not be too surprised when it swings back in your own direction eventually.

It always does.

TurtleDude said:

there is an old saying

If you intend to shoot the king you best not miss

the unions shot and missed.

paybacks are a bitch. Let the heads roll

Click to expand...

I believe it was Saint Sarah of the Far Right Frozen North who gave the advice to "RELOAD".

TurtleDude said:

there is an old saying

If you intend to shoot the king you best not miss

the unions shot and missed.

paybacks are a bitch. Let the heads roll

Click to expand...

This has been an ongoing fight since the founding of this country: the first union as we know it in this country was the Philadelphia shoe cobble's union organized in 1790. So this has been going on for while; nothing new.

As I said earlier: the fuse has been lit.

cpgrad08 said:

I would like to see a national right to work law past.

Click to expand...

I guess States rights don't mean anything to the Right when it's about Unions.

Centinel said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't an employer hire some workers from one union, some more workers from another union, and even more workers directly as individuals?

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's then the same as no unions. Unions only work if the workers are united. That's why the "Divided Auto Workers" doesn't have any power at all.

lpast said:

Yeah your right the entire federal deficit and all the states woes are ALL the fault of public sector unions....CPwill heres the TRUTH the rich have raped public sector workers and put it all right in their pocket....the rich literally HATE that they cant control public worker unions and steal from them...so they started this class warfare between public and private sector workers...and in the end the private sector workers are going to get even Less then they are now...MORONS...they will wake up but it will be too late for them, they will have been stripped of everything especially their dignity.
All the proof of that is right in front of t heir eyes...they'd just rather believe koch Brother super pac attack ads...

Click to expand...

I wonder who they'll blame when the Unions are gone and there's still deficits? Oh wait, I know who it'll be...

Centinel said:

Regarding the bolded above, why does this have to be? Each contract with an employer could simply apply to those covered under the contract, with other employees being covered under their own employment contracts.

Click to expand...

I don't know why it has to be, but that it is. Perhaps it is because it is easier for the employer. But I really don't know.

Boo Radley said:

I don't know why it has to be, but that it is. Perhaps it is because it is easier for the employer. But I really don't know.

Click to expand...

It is because of the National Labor Relations Act signed by FDR. It lays out the rights of unions and such, but includes rights for all employees. Basically, you can't discriminate against an employee who is not in a union. In many cases certain employees/positions of certain organizations are not allowed/invited/eligible to join a union. If that's the case the employer is not allowed to terminate or withhold benefits they grant to other employees simply because they are not in the union. This is applies whether it is by choice or not. However, in many cases such as teacher's unions, opting out of the union doesn't mean you can opt out of paying your dues. In many cases you still legally have to pay 85-90% of the union dues anyway and you lose the added benefits. For example, if your union dues are $1000 annually and you opt out of the union the State will still garnish your pay and give $850 to the union anyway. But if you need representation for unlawful termination or some other employment disagreement the union will not support you. They will simply take your money and leave you high and dry. It's also interesting to note that in most school districts the union leaders have "teacher contracts," but they do not teach. The taxpayers are paying them a full teacher's salary to simply manage union business. The union collects dues which they spend on lawyers, marketers, lobbyists, political donations, etc, but they do not pay for their employees to run their union. The taxpayers are typically on the hook to pay teachers to not teach. A VERY small amount of the dues collected actually go to political funds. If you look at top political donors in America public unions, specifically teacher's unions are the largest donors of funds.

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

If you add up just the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) it adds up to more than any other donor in the nation. This is how they receive such preferential treatment in our nation. These are private political organizations who have managed to coerce the state government to garnish the wages of public employees and fund their political engine. Imagine if to become a garbage collector you had to be a card carrying member of the NRA and the state garnished your pay $1,000 annually and handed it over to that private political group. The idea would likely sound insane, but that is exactly what happens with public unions. The fact that so many people are up in arms over the idea of giving employees the freedom to choose whether they want to be associated with a political organization is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. In the name of "employee rights" they are trampling on a basic human/American right of freedom of association. It has been going on for so long that people don't even realize what it is they're doing.

rocket88 said:

The problem is that it's then the same as no unions. Unions only work if the workers are united. That's why the "Divided Auto Workers" doesn't have any power at all.

Click to expand...

So those workers who wish to have power will join a union, and those who don't won't. Or they'll join a better union. Choice is good, no?

Boo Radley said:

I don't know why it has to be, but that it is. Perhaps it is because it is easier for the employer. But I really don't know.

Click to expand...

I don't either. It bears looking into.

The notion that the richest country in the world can't afford to pay working class people normal wages, while we give hundreds of billions or even trillions in tax giveaways to the super rich, is just disgusting. Some people just plain don't have the basic moral values that we should be able to take for granted.

teamosil said:

The notion that the richest country in the world can't afford to pay working class people normal wages, while we give hundreds of billions or even trillions in tax giveaways to the super rich, is just disgusting. Some people just plain don't have the basic moral values that we should be able to take for granted.

Click to expand...

more idiotic class envy nonsense. We don't GIVE the super rich anything. They pay more taxes in a month than all the union members do in a year. We cannot afford to pay 40 dollars an hour for labor when equally skilled Indians, Chinese, or Sri Lankians can do the same job for 15 an hour. Companies that pay overpriced wages lose to those that do not

TurtleDude said:

more idiotic class envy nonsense. We don't GIVE the super rich anything.

Click to expand...

Of course we do lol. Where did you think they got that money from? They skim off other people's labor or purchases. Obviously you already understood that...

TurtleDude said:

We cannot afford to pay 40 dollars an hour for labor when equally skilled Indians, Chinese, or Sri Lankians can do the same job for 15 an hour. Companies that pay overpriced wages lose to those that do not

Click to expand...

Fundamentally TD, you just are not on the same team as the American people.

teamosil said:

Of course we do lol. Where did you think they got that money from? They skim off other people's labor or purchases. Obviously you already understood that...



Fundamentally TD, you just are not on the same team as the American people.

Click to expand...

AH more marxist idiocy. You contract with someone, pay them an agreed wage and if you profit you somehow rip them off.

I am on the team of reality. Your short term solutions are long term disasters.

TurtleDude said:

AH more marxist idiocy. You contract with someone, pay them an agreed wage and if you profit you somehow rip them off.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about ripping anybody off. Obviously you understand that rich people get their money from society, so I'm not really sure what we're debating here.