Unions cowardly lie about why they go on strike

Neomalthusian · Dec 4, 2017

State and federal labor boards need to stop allowing unions to literally lie about why they're going on strike. Most strikes happen when negotiations stall, and most negotiations stall because of financial subjects of bargaining. This makes most strikes that occur after stalled negotiations inherently economic strikes. However unions can also go on strike to protest unfair labor practices. The alleged reason for striking matters to the union. Even when their strike is clearly and plainly economic, they look for or make up any excuse they can for their strike to be labeled an "unfair labor practice strike." Why?

Because under federal law employers can permanently replace economic strikers. Employees who go on strike because they aren't getting the money they want out of the employer can be permanently replaced. They cannot be "fired" per se, but they are not entitled to getting their job back when they seek reinstatement. But if employees are striking to protest an unfair labor practice claim, they cannot be permanently replaced.

So unions lie about why they strike. Here's the playbook, literally: Making Sure a Strike Centers on Unfair Labor Practices - Labor Notes

Latest example, look what SEIU says about its strike: City of Oakland Workers Strike to Protest Unfair Labor Practices and Inadequate City Services

On Thursday, November 2, City of Oakland members went on strike to protest the City’s unfair labor practices and failures of leadership on homelessness, illegal dumping, and abuse of temporary, part-time workers without basic workplace rights and protections.

Wow, that's a lot of random different things to be going on strike about. What's really going on here?

Oakland workers prepare to strike Tuesday as labor negotiations hit standstill - SFGate

Labor unions representing more than 3,000 city workers in Oakland said they will go on strike starting Tuesday after negotiations came to a halt Monday afternoon.

(snip)

The union agreed with the city’s first-year contract proposal, which would increase wages by 4 percent, retroactive to July 1. The parties dispute what should happen next: the city has offered future salary increases tied to its revenue growth, but the union wants a more secure deal.

Golly, that sounds awfully economic to me. What strange timing that some random-ass bunch of other unfair labor practice allegations happen to surface the moment negotiations over monetary provisions stall?

Why do we constantly allow unions to literally and blatantly lie and skirt the law?

What if...? · Dec 4, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
State and federal labor boards need to stop allowing unions to literally lie about why they're going on strike. Most strikes happen when negotiations stall, and most negotiations stall because of financial subjects of bargaining. This makes most strikes that occur after stalled negotiations inherently economic strikes. However unions can also go on strike to protest unfair labor practices. The alleged reason for striking matters to the union. Even when their strike is clearly and plainly economic, they look for or make up any excuse they can for their strike to be labeled an "unfair labor practice strike." Why?

Because under federal law employers can permanently replace economic strikers. Employees who go on strike because they aren't getting the money they want out of the employer can be permanently replaced. They cannot be "fired" per se, but they are not entitled to getting their job back when they seek reinstatement. But if employees are striking to protest an unfair labor practice claim, they cannot be permanently replaced.

So unions lie about why they strike. Here's the playbook, literally: Making Sure a Strike Centers on Unfair Labor Practices - Labor Notes

Latest example, look what SEIU says about its strike: City of Oakland Workers Strike to Protest Unfair Labor Practices and Inadequate City Services

Wow, that's a lot of random different things to be going on strike about. What's really going on here?

Oakland workers prepare to strike Tuesday as labor negotiations hit standstill - SFGate

Golly, that sounds awfully economic to me. What strange timing that some random-ass bunch of other unfair labor practice allegations happen to surface the moment negotiations over monetary provisions stall?

Why do we constantly allow unions to literally and blatantly lie and skirt the law?

Did a union touch you or something when you were little?

Dirt Sands · Dec 4, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
State and federal labor boards need to stop allowing unions to literally lie about why they're going on strike. Most strikes happen when negotiations stall, and most negotiations stall because of financial subjects of bargaining. This makes most strikes that occur after stalled negotiations inherently economic strikes. However unions can also go on strike to protest unfair labor practices. The alleged reason for striking matters to the union. Even when their strike is clearly and plainly economic, they look for or make up any excuse they can for their strike to be labeled an "unfair labor practice strike." Why?

Because under federal law employers can permanently replace economic strikers. Employees who go on strike because they aren't getting the money they want out of the employer can be permanently replaced. They cannot be "fired" per se, but they are not entitled to getting their job back when they seek reinstatement. But if employees are striking to protest an unfair labor practice claim, they cannot be permanently replaced.

So unions lie about why they strike. Here's the playbook, literally: Making Sure a Strike Centers on Unfair Labor Practices - Labor Notes

Latest example, look what SEIU says about its strike: City of Oakland Workers Strike to Protest Unfair Labor Practices and Inadequate City Services

Wow, that's a lot of random different things to be going on strike about. What's really going on here?

Oakland workers prepare to strike Tuesday as labor negotiations hit standstill - SFGate

Golly, that sounds awfully economic to me. What strange timing that some random-ass bunch of other unfair labor practice allegations happen to surface the moment negotiations over monetary provisions stall?

Why do we constantly allow unions to literally and blatantly lie and skirt the law?

Beating up on already beaten up unions is so lame. They have less power today than in sometime, maybe since the beginning. How can you be American and be against collective bargaining? Unions have very little say these days. Why this topic now?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Neomalthusian · Dec 5, 2017

Dirt Sands said:
Beating up on already beaten up unions is so lame.

Pointing out lies is “beating up on” the liar? Give me a break.

They have less power today than in sometime

How is that relevant to the topic?

How can you be American and be against collective bargaining?

I’m not moved by appeals to patriotism, sorry.

Unions have very little say these days.

Still not relevant to the topic!

Why this topic now?

Because 3,000 public employees just went on strike in Oakland and lied about why so that they couldn’t be permanently replaced.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 5, 2017

What if...? said:
Did a union touch you or something when you were little?

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the snark.

Thumper39 · Dec 5, 2017

Dirt Sands said:
Beating up on already beaten up unions is so lame. They have less power today than in sometime, maybe since the beginning. How can you be American and be against collective bargaining? Unions have very little say these days. Why this topic now?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

I know ya weren't addressing me. But wanted to comment on this.

I'm neither pro nor anti union. I've been a member of a couple, and have no desire to go back to one. While some people may find safety in collective bargaining it removes the ability to bargain individually. And yes. You can bargain individually with your employer if there is no union. That's what I did with my current and several past employers. And in every instance I ended up better off than if I would have entered an collective bargaining unit.

Now all that said. I do not believe that membership should be enforced by law. And I also do not thing that unions should be forced to represent non members by the force of law.

Take Iowa for example. The union can not try to intimidate you into joining. There are actually some pretty stiff legal penalties if a member simply calls a non member a scab. But at the same time that union is required by law to represent that non dues paying member with the same vigor as a dues paying member in good standing. I find that morally reprehensible.

Neomalthusian · Dec 5, 2017

Thumper39 said:
I know ya weren't addressing me. But wanted to comment on this.

I'm neither pro nor anti union. I've been a member of a couple, and have no desire to go back to one. While some people may find safety in collective bargaining it removes the ability to bargain individually. And yes. You can bargain individually with your employer if there is no union. That's what I did with my current and several past employers. And in every instance I ended up better off than if I would have entered an collective bargaining unit.

Now all that said. I do not believe that membership should be enforced by law. And I also do not thing that unions should be forced to represent non members by the force of law.

Take Iowa for example. The union can not try to intimidate you into joining. There are actually some pretty stiff legal penalties if a member simply calls a non member a scab. But at the same time that union is required by law to represent that non dues paying member with the same vigor as a dues paying member in good standing. I find that morally reprehensible.

A solution to the union’s “free rider” claim is on the table. Why doesn’t it enjoy union support?

"It was the government-worker unions that fought for the right to represent all employees, and it is the government-worker unions that lobby against changes to that law."

(snip)

Illinois could enact what is called “Worker’s Choice” – legislation that would allow workers to opt out of union fees and union representation. Instead, they would be allowed to represent themselves when negotiating their employment arrangements. That would solve the unions’ “free rider” claims. The employee wouldn’t pay the union, but the union wouldn’t represent the employee. It should have full union support. But it does not.

In 2017, state Rep. Allen Skillicorn, R-Crystal Lake, sponsored Worker’s Choice legislation for Illinois. But according to hearing data on the Illinois General Assembly’s website, unions such as the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chicago Laborers’ District Council and the Laborers’ International Union registered their opposition to the bills.

Not only did government-worker unions create the laws that grant them exclusive representation of all workers, but they also stymie any efforts to let workers break away from that forced representation.

Illinois unions wrote the laws they blame in ‘fair share’ debate

Thumper39 · Dec 5, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
A solution to the union’s “free rider” claim is on the table. Why doesn’t it enjoy union support?

"It was the government-worker unions that fought for the right to represent all employees, and it is the government-worker unions that lobby against changes to that law."

(snip)

Illinois could enact what is called “Worker’s Choice” – legislation that would allow workers to opt out of union fees and union representation. Instead, they would be allowed to represent themselves when negotiating their employment arrangements. That would solve the unions’ “free rider” claims. The employee wouldn’t pay the union, but the union wouldn’t represent the employee. It should have full union support. But it does not.

In 2017, state Rep. Allen Skillicorn, R-Crystal Lake, sponsored Worker’s Choice legislation for Illinois. But according to hearing data on the Illinois General Assembly’s website, unions such as the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chicago Laborers’ District Council and the Laborers’ International Union registered their opposition to the bills.

Not only did government-worker unions create the laws that grant them exclusive representation of all workers, but they also stymie any efforts to let workers break away from that forced representation.

Illinois unions wrote the laws they blame in ‘fair share’ debate

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that. But I suppose it does make sense that they'd oppose it.

Neomalthusian · Dec 5, 2017

Thumper39 said:
Interesting. I hadn't heard about that. But I suppose it does make sense that they'd oppose it.

Without the so-called "free-rider" problem, they have no excuse for coercive dues. If we eliminate coercive dues and coercive representation, union membership becomes like any other membership or service, in that you only get what you pay for.

But back to the topic, even if the entire nation goes Right to Work (Janus v. AFSCME), and even if the so-called duty of exclusive representation is abolished (e.g., Hill v. SEIU), there will still be unions staging strikes, and there is a federal law called the National Labor Relations Act that gives employers certain rights when their employees walk off the job to go on strike. That federal law entitles employers to hire permanent replacements when the strike is over economic terms of their contract. But this law is not enforced, because when negotiations over economic terms hit a deadlock, unions (such as the example in the OP) are suddenly pretending the strike is actually about some unfair labor practice. Federal law is federal law, and it should be followed. State and federal labor boards are not upholding federal law by authorizing economic strikes to be conducted under the guise of unfair labor practice strikes. This deprives public employers of their rights under federal labor law.

FastPace · Dec 5, 2017

I'm pretty pro-union. Not that some unions can't shoot themselves in the foot at times.

Neomalthusian · Dec 5, 2017

FastPace said:
I'm pretty pro-union. Not that some unions can't shoot themselves in the foot at times.

Do they in relation to this issue? How so?

Dirt Sands · Dec 5, 2017

Why don't we break the teachers union so that pay drops. Your kids might be a little stupider. We could also break the police Union or the fighter fighters union. I wonder if we'd be less safe. God, what about in outrageously high rent cities. Somebody has to be a janitor. There are industries where its good and still others that should be. Retail employees are a good example. The person selling you $300 pairs of pants at Armani is making about minimum wage.

Collective Bargaining is part of what makes America America. Let's go back to letting six year old kids work in a coal mine. We need unions.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Thumper39 · Dec 5, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
Without the so-called "free-rider" problem, they have no excuse for coercive dues. If we eliminate coercive dues and coercive representation, union membership becomes like any other membership or service, in that you only get what you pay for.

But back to the topic, even if the entire nation goes Right to Work (Janus v. AFSCME), and even if the so-called duty of exclusive representation is abolished (e.g., Hill v. SEIU), there will still be unions staging strikes, and there is a federal law called the National Labor Relations Act that gives employers certain rights when their employees walk off the job to go on strike. That federal law entitles employers to hire permanent replacements when the strike is over economic terms of their contract. But this law is not enforced, because when negotiations over economic terms hit a deadlock, unions (such as the example in the OP) are suddenly pretending the strike is actually about some unfair labor practice. Federal law is federal law, and it should be followed. State and federal labor boards are not upholding federal law by authorizing economic strikes to be conducted under the guise of unfair labor practice strikes. This deprives public employers of their rights under federal labor law.

Im not going to pretend to be well read on this subject. So can you explain economic reasons for a strike?

Thumper39 · Dec 5, 2017

Dirt Sands said:
Why don't we break the teachers union so that pay drops. Your kids might be a little stupider. We could also break the police Union or the fighter fighters union. I wonder if we'd be less safe. God, what about in outrageously high rent cities. Somebody has to be a janitor. There are industries where its good and still others that should be. Retail employees are a good example. The person selling you $300 pairs of pants at Armani is making about minimum wage.

Collective Bargaining is part of what makes America America. Let's go back to letting six year old kids work in a coal mine. We need unions.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

I sit on the school board in my district. A new teacher with the bare minimum education makes 38 k a year with no overtime. Median average income in this town is 33k a year. Overtime is defined as anything over 7 hours in a day, 175 days a year. We have teachers that are making 75k a year working the bare minimum hours and days a year.

poweRob · Dec 5, 2017

Thumper39 said:
I know ya weren't addressing me. But wanted to comment on this.

I'm neither pro nor anti union. I've been a member of a couple, and have no desire to go back to one. While some people may find safety in collective bargaining it removes the ability to bargain individually. And yes. You can bargain individually with your employer if there is no union.

I'll bet you weren't in a closed shop union where you? Especially since they became illegal in the United States with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Since you were not, then you could just simply not join the union and bargain on your own then. You had that choice. Unions didn't stop you from that.

Thumper39 said:
That's what I did with my current and several past employers. And in every instance I ended up better off than if I would have entered an collective bargaining unit.

Little did you know, you had that power all along.

Thumper39 said:
Now all that said. I do not believe that membership should be enforced by law. And I also do not thing that unions should be forced to represent non members by the force of law.

Take Iowa for example. The union can not try to intimidate you into joining. There are actually some pretty stiff legal penalties if a member simply calls a non member a scab. But at the same time that union is required by law to represent that non dues paying member with the same vigor as a dues paying member in good standing. I find that morally reprehensible.

It is kind of big governmentish to use the force of government to tell a union to do that.

poweRob · Dec 5, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
A solution to the union’s “free rider” claim is on the table. Why doesn’t it enjoy union support?

"It was the government-worker unions that fought for the right to represent all employees, and it is the government-worker unions that lobby against changes to that law."

(snip)

Illinois could enact what is called “Worker’s Choice” – legislation that would allow workers to opt out of union fees and union representation. Instead, they would be allowed to represent themselves when negotiating their employment arrangements. That would solve the unions’ “free rider” claims. The employee wouldn’t pay the union, but the union wouldn’t represent the employee. It should have full union support. But it does not.

In 2017, state Rep. Allen Skillicorn, R-Crystal Lake, sponsored Worker’s Choice legislation for Illinois. But according to hearing data on the Illinois General Assembly’s website, unions such as the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chicago Laborers’ District Council and the Laborers’ International Union registered their opposition to the bills.

Not only did government-worker unions create the laws that grant them exclusive representation of all workers, but they also stymie any efforts to let workers break away from that forced representation.

Illinois unions wrote the laws they blame in ‘fair share’ debate

I guess you don't grasp well the concept of the definition of union vs individual.

poweRob · Dec 5, 2017

FastPace said:
I'm pretty pro-union. Not that some unions can't shoot themselves in the foot at times.

Of course there are ****ty unions. But at least a union is a democracy so if you are in a union and you hate it, it's partially your own fault.

poweRob · Dec 5, 2017

Thumper39 said:
I sit on the school board in my district. A new teacher with the bare minimum education makes 38 k a year with no overtime. Median average income in this town is 33k a year. Overtime is defined as anything over 7 hours in a day, 175 days a year. We have teachers that are making 75k a year working the bare minimum hours and days a year.

38k isn't not a lot to live on even in cheap areas. Especially for a family. We all keep saying how teachers need to be paid better. BTW, even a bare minimum education for a teacher requires quite a bit of schooling. It sounds like you are playing down their education credentials.

Thumper39 · Dec 6, 2017

poweRob said:
38k isn't not a lot to live on even in cheap areas. Especially for a family. We all keep saying how teachers need to be paid better. BTW, even a bare minimum education for a teacher requires quite a bit of schooling. It sounds like you are playing down their education credentials.

You need to look a little deeper into my post. Note the number of hours worked as well as the median average in my area. Now know that a supervisor in an industrial setting with similar education will work double the hours and make 15 to 20 k a year more. So the teachers are overcompensated in this area. They are essentially working part time jobs earning more than 60% of this town.

Saladin4 · Dec 6, 2017

Thumper39 said:
I sit on the school board in my district. A new teacher with the bare minimum education makes 38 k a year with no overtime. Median average income in this town is 33k a year. Overtime is defined as anything over 7 hours in a day, 175 days a year. We have teachers that are making 75k a year working the bare minimum hours and days a year.

Yeah teachers are rolling in the cash...Sure

Thumper39 · Dec 6, 2017

Saladin4 said:
Yeah teachers are rolling in the cash...Sure

Compared to like educated people yeah. In many areas they are very overpaid. Don't know about you. But I can't think of any other profession in the private sector where you can make nearly twice the median average income working less than fifteen hundred hours a year. To put things into perspective. 52 40 hour weeks is over 2000 hours. So yeah. They're raking in the dough.

Are all teachers making that kind of money? No. But they are typically compensated pretty well when you consider how little they actually work. A teacher with a masters degree and 4 years of service in the district makes what works out to fifty bucks an hour.

Thumper39 · Dec 6, 2017

Double post my bad.

Dirt Sands · Dec 6, 2017

Thumper39 said:
I sit on the school board in my district. A new teacher with the bare minimum education makes 38 k a year with no overtime. Median average income in this town is 33k a year. Overtime is defined as anything over 7 hours in a day, 175 days a year. We have teachers that are making 75k a year working the bare minimum hours and days a year.

Curiously, what state are you on the school board?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Neomalthusian · Dec 6, 2017

Thumper39 said:
Im not going to pretend to be well read on this subject. So can you explain economic reasons for a strike?

When negotiations over new contract terms stall over disagreement on items that cost the employer money, that is an economic strike.

Neomalthusian · Dec 6, 2017

poweRob said:
Of course there are ****ty unions. But at least a union is a democracy so if you are in a union and you hate it, it's partially your own fault.

This topic concerns unions blatantly lying about the reason for striking so that they can skirt the law and deprive employers’ or their NLRA rights under economic strike conditions.

Unions cowardly lie about why they go on strike

Well-known member

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Member

USMC 1988-1996

USMC 1988-1996

USMC 1988-1996

USMC 1988-1996

Member

Member

Member

Well-known member