• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employee Free Choice Act

Do you favore the Employee Free Choice Act

  • Yes, I am in favor, but with some reservations

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
some states do authorize an automatic check off. that requires the employees represented by the union to now be required to pay dues whether they agree to join the union or not
other states do not compel union dues to be paid by anyone other than union members. that allows "free riders" to be represented by the union - as the federal law requires the union represent all bargaining unit members. those employees realize the rewards of union representation without having to incur the cost. only dues paying union members are able to vote in the union elections, however

What I have found with Unions is that the wage scales are not based on achievement and productivity but instead are based on seniority in a company.

I was looking at working for one of the railroad operators and with both in my local area, it was required that you join the union and pay dues.

The advancement in pay was based solely on how long you had been employed with them. If that were the case with my current employer I wouldn't be making more than people who have been here longer than I have.

It makes no sense to have a long time union.
 
Horrible bill. It's just a mass stealth unionization effort with the backing and support of the federal government.
 
What I have found with Unions is that the wage scales are not based on achievement and productivity but instead are based on seniority in a company.

I was looking at working for one of the railroad operators and with both in my local area, it was required that you join the union and pay dues.

The advancement in pay was based solely on how long you had been employed with them. If that were the case with my current employer I wouldn't be making more than people who have been here longer than I have.

It makes no sense to have a long time union.

This is typical of factory work in general, not unions. I have not been in a union, but my pay is based on seniority. Within 2 years at my current job I was making the same pay as everyone with at least 2 years.
 
The problem is, by and large every employee already has a guarantee of a safe work environment under existing labor laws, the unions don't have to do it. There was a time when it was necessary, it simply isn't anymore. Unions push for higher wages but only so people don't complain too much when their paychecks are raped for union dues. In the end, the union workers are no better off than the non-union workers, the unions just end up driving companies into bankruptcy because of the higher rates that must be paid for the same amount of work and a ton more headaches.

Ask GM how happy they are with their union contracts. Oh wait, they declared bankruptcy, didn't they? :doh

The problem with this logic is that the reason unions cost the companies more is that they are in fact getting more for their members. That is where the extra costs come from. The problem arises when the union demands, and the company gives them too much, and this is usually not seen until it's too late.

I don't like unions as a general rule, and have voted against being unionized. However, I suspect that without the threat of unions and the fear of possible unionization, that things would get worse for workers in this country.
 
This is typical of factory work in general, not unions. I have not been in a union, but my pay is based on seniority. Within 2 years at my current job I was making the same pay as everyone with at least 2 years.

I work in a factory and while we have a base starting pay, all our raises are based on performance.

I make about the same as some who have been there 7 years or so because of my initial performance raise.
 
I work in a factory and while we have a base starting pay, all our raises are based on performance.

I make about the same as some who have been there 7 years or so because of my initial performance raise.

Hmm, maybe it is something that varies by area. Almost every employer I know of in this area, pay is based on seniority for "nonskilled" labor.
 
Hmm, maybe it is something that varies by area. Almost every employer I know of in this area, pay is based on seniority for "nonskilled" labor.

I think it does vary a lot.

First, it really depends on your corporate structure.

My company is all gung ho about us being members and not employees.
We have a lot of ownership possibilities that others don't have but its all related to performance and participation.

All our bonuses are performance bonuses.
 
I think it does vary a lot.

First, it really depends on your corporate structure.

My company is all gung ho about us being members and not employees.
We have a lot of ownership possibilities that others don't have but its all related to performance and participation.

All our bonuses are performance bonuses.

For us, "performance bonuses" are profit sharing, which Magna does very well. We get cash and Magna stock each year.
 
For us, "performance bonuses" are profit sharing, which Magna does very well. We get cash and Magna stock each year.

We just got our profit sharing for the last 6 months. It was ok but lighter than usual which is expected during a recession.

We have a line efficiency bonus, which can be earned weekly. We are supposed to put out at least X units per hour and if we exceed that we earn what ever percent over the minimum we put out. Example, If we ran at 110% efficiency we earn our regular pay plus 10%.

We have a quality bonus based on costumer complaints and an in house product audit. Its monthly an can be $25-$100.

They are changing our safety bonus, so I'm not sure what it will be.

Stock benefits are nice if you buy into it.
 
We just got our profit sharing for the last 6 months. It was ok but lighter than usual which is expected during a recession.

We have a line efficiency bonus, which can be earned weekly. We are supposed to put out at least X units per hour and if we exceed that we earn what ever percent over the minimum we put out. Example, If we ran at 110% efficiency we earn our regular pay plus 10%.

We have a quality bonus based on costumer complaints and an in house product audit. Its monthly an can be $25-$100.

They are changing our safety bonus, so I'm not sure what it will be.

Stock benefits are nice if you buy into it.

Sounds like a really nice system. I am not sure the line bonuses would work for us. Depending on what each line produces, some are trivial to top rate, some are impossible to make rate.
 
Sounds like a really nice system. I am not sure the line bonuses would work for us. Depending on what each line produces, some are trivial to top rate, some are impossible to make rate.

Yea, its not as simple for us as it sounds either.
Making that extra 10% can be difficult.

Are you part of line management or are you a line worker?
 
Yea, its not as simple for us as it sounds either.
Making that extra 10% can be difficult.

Are you part of line management or are you a line worker?

I am a worker.
 
Indeed....for ought not the freedom to associate include the freedom to dissociate?

Not according to USSC rulings, in that all male clubs are as rare as hens teeth nowadays, exclusive country clubs can't exclude, and all sorts of other interference in the private lives of the citizens by the rampaging left has damaged the Constitution forever.
 
some states do authorize an automatic check off. that requires the employees represented by the union to now be required to pay dues whether they agree to join the union or not


That's plain wrong.

other states do not compel union dues to be paid by anyone other than union members.

That's fair.

If I don't choose to be in someone quilting party, I shouldn't be required to supply the snacks.

that allows "free riders" to be represented by the union - as the federal law requires the union represent all bargaining unit members.

Good for federal law. Does that mean the goonion bosses would be able to spend more time and money schmoozing with Joe Biden at a Florida five start hotel on their dollars, if they could get them?

It's not like the unions actually help the worker, cuz they don't.

those employees realize the rewards of union representation without having to incur the cost. only dues paying union members are able to vote in the union elections, however

Only goonion members should bear the burden of their parasitic goonion leadership. What could be fairer than that?
 
Originally Posted by justabubba
some states do authorize an automatic check off. that requires the employees represented by the union to now be required to pay dues whether they agree to join the union or not

That's plain wrong.

it is something determined by each state. so, the citizen can move to change the state law, opt to avoid employment at union represented employer sites or move to a state which does not sanction check-off

Quote:
Originally Posted by justabubba
other states do not compel union dues to be paid by anyone other than union members.
That's fair.

If I don't choose to be in someone quilting party, I shouldn't be required to supply the snacks.

well, it helps the unions to win representational elections. where the employee knows that they will have dues automatically deducted, they tend to be less inclined to authorize a union when the election is held
if the law is passed, they will be less inclined to sign the card requesting representation by the union

in my own experience, being able to tell employees who were straddling the fence on this issue that they could both have the union representation and not pay dues (in our no check-off state) is what put us over the top when our election to be union represented was held

so, it is a double edged sword


Quote:
Originally Posted by justabubba
that allows "free riders" to be represented by the union - as the federal law requires the union represent all bargaining unit members.
Good for federal law. Does that mean the goonion bosses would be able to spend more time and money schmoozing with Joe Biden at a Florida five start hotel on their dollars, if they could get them?

not being familiar with your politics, have you been similarly opposed to lobbyists being able to schmooze politicians and fund their campaign war chests ... or do you take an unprincipaled stand and just oppose the unions doing that?

It's not like the unions actually help the worker, cuz they don't.

being a union official, who has just negotiated a $7.6 million award (for the federal employer's failure to pay compensable overtime), i must disagree with your position that unions do not assist their represented employees. i could simply provoke you, and thank you for paying your share of that multi-million dollar award as a U.S. taxpayer, but i will also point out that you are partially correct. unions are nothing other than the lawful assembly of employees of an organization, enforcing their legal rights as found in 5 USC chapter 71. where the employees choose not to participate in their own union's activities that leave a void for rogues and incompetents to occupy. this is not unlike being represented by rogue and incompetent politicians. and in both instances the representatives MUST be chosen by democratic election, under the law


Quote:
Originally Posted by justabubba
those employees realize the rewards of union representation without having to incur the cost. only dues paying union members are able to vote in the union elections, however
Only goonion members should bear the burden of their parasitic goonion leadership. What could be fairer than that?

no doubt you think this is a good thing. but in reality, this facilitates those who want to (ab)use the union offices for wayward activities
 
it is something determined by each state. so, the citizen can move to change the state law, opt to avoid employment at union represented employer sites or move to a state which does not sanction check-off

It's still plain wrong.

It's just like saying that if 50%+1 of the state's population decides the other 50%-1 of the states population should pay twice the income tax, it's okay, because if was voted by the majority.

Forced association is wrong, can you figure that out?

well, it helps the unions to win representational elections. where the employee knows that they will have dues automatically deducted, they tend to be less inclined to authorize a union when the election is held
if the law is passed, they will be less inclined to sign the card requesting representation by the union

in my own experience, being able to tell employees who were straddling the fence on this issue that they could both have the union representation and not pay dues (in our no check-off state) is what put us over the top when our election to be union represented was held

More like, well, shoot, if what you fools want isn't going to cost me anything, I don't care what you do, jump off the bridge all you want.

not being familiar with your politics, have you been similarly opposed to lobbyists being able to schmooze politicians and fund their campaign war chests ... or do you take an unprincipaled stand and just oppose the unions doing that?

Not the same issue. Nor have I stated any position on this issue you just non-sequitured into the discussion.

being a union official, who has just negotiated a $7.6 million award (for the federal employer's failure to pay compensable overtime), i must disagree with your position that unions do not assist their represented employees. i could simply provoke you, and thank you for paying your share of that multi-million dollar award as a U.S. taxpayer, but i will also point out that you are partially correct. unions are nothing other than the lawful assembly of employees of an organization, enforcing their legal rights as found in 5 USC chapter 71. where the employees choose not to participate in their own union's activities that leave a void for rogues and incompetents to occupy. this is not unlike being represented by rogue and incompetent politicians.

No, it's like being represented by no one and having rogue and incompetent mobsters taking a hunk of your paycheck.

You do realize what kind of people top the unions, don't you?
 
In fact, many talk radio folks (and I know we don't all like talk radio) have been stating for months (or years) that bankruptcy would be the best way to get the monkeys off of the companys' backs.

Just like bankruptcy is the only way out of California's financial troubles because like GM, the majority of California tax money goes to fund the union beasts.
 
The problem with this logic is that the reason unions cost the companies more is that they are in fact getting more for their members. That is where the extra costs come from. The problem arises when the union demands, and the company gives them too much, and this is usually not seen until it's too late.

I don't like unions as a general rule, and have voted against being unionized. However, I suspect that without the threat of unions and the fear of possible unionization, that things would get worse for workers in this country.

But they're really not, that's the thing. Over the years, I've been on both sides of the union fence, I've been a member of a union and I've been management over a union shop and both sides suck. Management is hamstrung by union rules, the union would rather see a company go out of business than agree to any cuts and it adds a ridiculous layer of bureaucracy to the mix that union members have to deal with, you can't just go talk to management, you have to have a union representative with you to ask for a day off (and yes, I am serious, I had to do that on more than one occasion).

The fact is, virtually every reason that unions got started over in the first place are now codified into law, we don't need unions to guarantee workplace safety, you've got OSHA and the state labor board for that. It's a concept that has long outlived it's usefulness, now it's just a bunch of thugs who are going around asking for protection money, most of the unions have absolutely no stake in the companies they are unionizing, they just want the money to keep rolling in.
 
Additional question:

If 50%+1 "workers" in a shop vote to goonionize, does that mean the 50%-1 workers who declined will be forced to goonionize too?

If they are, does this not violate the freedom of association guarantee of the First Amendment?

I'm not sure about everywhere, but I refuse to join the union associated with my current occupation. I'm allowed to not be in the union.

But I make the same as the rest of the unionized employees and get raises when they do, so this somehow entitles the union to take a "fee" that is lower than the normal union dues. I don't have a choice whether to pay them or not, but I would pay more money if I joined them and then have more deductions for various stuff I don't need or want.



My occupation is somewhat odd though because anyone who does this particular job is actually paid by a third-party source (the third-party is actually charity) and not their actual employer.

I'm just pointing out that, at least in Illinois, the option to not be a member of a union does exist for certain occupations.
 
I'm not sure about everywhere, but I refuse to join the union associated with my current occupation. I'm allowed to not be in the union.

But I make the same as the rest of the unionized employees and get raises when they do, so this somehow entitles the union to take a "fee" that is lower than the normal union dues. I don't have a choice whether to pay them or not, but I would pay more money if I joined them and then have more deductions for various stuff I don't need or want.



My occupation is somewhat odd though because anyone who does this particular job is actually paid by a third-party source (the third-party is actually charity) and not their actual employer.

I'm just pointing out that, at least in Illinois, the option to not be a member of a union does exist for certain occupations.

That is crazy, how can they rationalize taking money from you when they do nothing?

The only occupation I know of in my state were you are required to join a union is when you work for one of the railroad operators.
 
That is crazy, how can they rationalize taking money from you when they do nothing?

It has something to do with raises and pay. Since I get paid according to their contract, they figure I owe them money.

Doesn't really matter when you think about it. The real world union dues are the difference between what I pay and what a union member pays since nobody can get away without paying something.

I look at that difference as the money I save by not being in the union.
 
But they're really not, that's the thing. Over the years, I've been on both sides of the union fence, I've been a member of a union and I've been management over a union shop and both sides suck. Management is hamstrung by union rules, the union would rather see a company go out of business than agree to any cuts and it adds a ridiculous layer of bureaucracy to the mix that union members have to deal with, you can't just go talk to management, you have to have a union representative with you to ask for a day off (and yes, I am serious, I had to do that on more than one occasion).

The fact is, virtually every reason that unions got started over in the first place are now codified into law, we don't need unions to guarantee workplace safety, you've got OSHA and the state labor board for that. It's a concept that has long outlived it's usefulness, now it's just a bunch of thugs who are going around asking for protection money, most of the unions have absolutely no stake in the companies they are unionizing, they just want the money to keep rolling in.

Beyond that, there are rampant corruption and organized crime issues with some of the major unions.

My dad was and is a union guy. He was a sheetmetal worker. The union trained him, and when he opened his own business, he hired union-trained workers. The union he belonged/belongs to is one of the few that still fulfills a mandate to employees of training and support. But it's rare these days.
 
This bill worries me. I can see unwilling employees being intimidated or bullied into signing these cards. Without a subsequent election, they have no way to undo what they've been bullied into doing.

I'm also offended by the whole closed shop idea, where employees can be forced to pay dues to a union that may or may not work in their interests.

OTOH, I have worked for The Boss from Hell, for an employer who didn't give a rat's tail about treating employees well. I can understand why unions have come into existence. It's happened precisely because some employers treat their employees like s***, pay them a pittance, under horrible working conditions, abuse from supervisors, with sometimes outrageous productivity quotas, while the employer makes huge profits.

Some employees who have tried to organize a union shop at their workplace have experienced harassment and even unjustified personnel action from their employers for trying to organize (EXAMPLE). I find this just as offensive as the strong-arm tactics of the unions.

True free choice would involve freedom of employees from coercion, by either the unions or the company they work for.
 
This bill worries me. I can see unwilling employees being intimidated or bullied into signing these cards. Without a subsequent election, they have no way to undo what they've been bullied into doing.

I'm also offended by the whole closed shop idea, where employees can be forced to pay dues to a union that may or may not work in their interests.

OTOH, I have worked for The Boss from Hell, for an employer who didn't give a rat's tail about treating employees well. I can understand why unions have come into existence. It's happened precisely because some employers treat their employees like s***, pay them a pittance, under horrible working conditions, abuse from supervisors, with sometimes outrageous productivity quotas, while the employer makes huge profits.

Some employees who have tried to organize a union shop at their workplace have experienced harassment and even unjustified personnel action from their employers for trying to organize (EXAMPLE). I find this just as offensive as the strong-arm tactics of the unions.

True free choice would involve freedom of employees from coercion, by either the unions or the company they work for.


i agree with everything you stated

this bill needs to be improved by making the department of labor ... not the union ... the recipient of any enrollment cards. the union nor the employer should have specific knowledge of what any employee indicated, just as neither party is allowed to know the specific employee ballots in a union election
 
Back
Top Bottom