• 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!

Do you support (NLRA) allowing "closed shop"?

DO you support the (NLRA) allowing a "closed shop"?

  • No I do not

    Votes: 20 66.7%

  • Yes I do

    Votes: 10 33.3%
  • Total voters
    30
Baralis

Baralis

DP Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
1,552
Location
MO
Political Leaning
Independent
This question is directed mainly at pro union members. Do you support the National Labor Relations Act which allows unions to "close shop" requiring by law employees to either join the union or pay union fees within 30 days or be fired?


Personally I feel it is legal extortion and should not be forced nor legal. True a person does not have to accept the job but why should a person be forced to pay to be allowed a job.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is "pro-union?"

I support the existence of unions but realize that constraints need to be placed upon them. And no I don't support this act.
 
Baralis said:
This question is directed mainly at pro union members. Do you support the National Labor Relations Act which allows unions to "close shop" requiring by law employees to either join the union or pay union fees within 30 days or be fired?


Personally I feel it is legal extortion and should not be forced nor legal. True a person does not have to accept the job but why should a person be forced to pay to be allowed a job.
Click to expand...

As long as it's in the private sector, I have no problems with a closed shop. If people don't want to pay their union dues, they don't have to work at that particular company. Their compensation is paid by the free market.

In the public sector? Absolutely no.
 
StillBallin75 said:
What exactly is "pro-union?"

I support the existence of unions but realize that constraints need to be placed upon them. And no I don't support this act.
Click to expand...

What I mean by "pro union" is anyone that supports workers unions. As we know many people are strictly "anti union" and would like to see them abolished.

I on the other hand consider myself neutral and am neither for nor against unions. I am however against some of the laws, tactics, and situations unions represent.
 
Baralis said:
What I mean by "pro union" is anyone that supports workers unions. As we know many people are strictly "anti union" and would like to see them abolished.

I on the other hand consider myself neutral and am neither for nor against unions. I am however against some of the laws, tactics, and situations unions represent.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of sitting on the fence on the issue of unions. On the one hand I believe that the freedom of association also includes the freedom to not associate. Nobody should pay a fee for having a job. On the other hand, there are inherent free-ridership problems when it comes to union membership. It's not a black-and-white issue.
 
Having to pay in order to get a job is idiotic in the extreme whether it is a private company or public.
 
Baralis said:
This question is directed mainly at pro union members. Do you support the National Labor Relations Act which allows unions to "close shop" requiring by law employees to either join the union or pay union fees within 30 days or be fired?


Personally I feel it is legal extortion and should not be forced nor legal. True a person does not have to accept the job but why should a person be forced to pay to be allowed a job.
Click to expand...

If you mean pro-union by do I support a worker's ability to unionize and collectedly bargain then I am pro-union. Closed shops should be illegal. The union does not own the company and therefore has no business dictating who can and can not get hired or impose a mandatory membership as a condition of hiring.An empoyee should not be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.


You should have selected the option to make vote public when you made the poll.
 
Last edited:
Yes I do

Given that any employee that is part of a union shop will benifit from the work of the union regarding labour contracts (wages and benifits) they should be expected to pay dues in order to pay for the representation the union provides

The person is not forced to join a union, he/she chooses to do so when they decide to accept a position at that place of employement (private or public).
 
jamesrage said:
If you mean pro-union by do I support a worker's ability to unionize and collectedly bargain then I am pro-union. Closed shops should be illegal. The union does not own the company and therefore has no business dictating who can and can not get hired or impose a mandatory membership as a condition of hiring.An empoyee should not be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.


You should have selected the option to make vote public when you made the poll.
Click to expand...

The public union in Wisconsin doesn't give you a choice. You're forced to join. However, Walker's bill would give you a choice. You could decide each year and you also could choose a different HC coverage that would save the state money.
 
Barbbtx said:
The public union in Wisconsin doesn't give you a choice. You're forced to join. However, Walker's bill would give you a choice. You could decide each year and you also could choose a different HC coverage that would save the state money.
Click to expand...

Darn unions forcing people to work for specific places rather then finding jobs at non union places.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes I do

Given that any employee that is part of a union shop will benifit from the work of the union regarding labour contracts (wages and benifits) they should be expected to pay dues in order to pay for the representation the union provides

The person is not forced to join a union, he/she chooses to do so when they decide to accept a position at that place of employement (private or public).
Click to expand...

Funny, the person who gets left out of these decisions is the employer. The Union has more power than the one who writes the paychecks.
 
Barbbtx said:
Funny, the person who gets left out of these decisions is the employer. The Union has more power than the one who writes the paychecks.
Click to expand...

The employer made the choice to sign the contract with the union.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Darn unions forcing people to work for specific places rather then finding jobs at non union places.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have that much power. They only negotiate what the wages will be, they don't write the paychecks. They shouldn't be able to force you to pay dues.
 
Barbbtx said:
They shouldn't have that much power. They only negotiate what the wages will be, they don't write the paychecks. They shouldn't be able to force you to pay dues.
Click to expand...

Unions dont have that power, people can work at non union places. They cant force you to work for Ford, you can go work for Toyota instead

If you want to work at a union shop, you benifit from the union and you pay union dues
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Unions dont have that power, people can work at non union places. They cant force you to work for Ford, you can go work for Toyota instead

If you want to work at a private-sector union shop, you benifit from the union and you pay union dues
Click to expand...

You benefit as long as you are medicore. If you are exceptional, the union has nothing for you unless you're lucky enough to get promoted out of it.
 
Last edited:
I know a guy who works at a large local theatre (the Washington Centre) that recently became unionized. He's had nothing but good things to say about it. He now has the opportunity to work gigs at other large places if they're understaffed and since they unionized the union has done some really nice stuff (like minimum working hour requirements for part time techies and the like) not to mention, the union helped him and his fellow workers get much better compensation.

It helps immensely with employee bargaining power and he says he feels like he finally has a voice. Just my two cents.
 
MaggieD said:
You benefit as long as you are medicore. If you are exceptional, the union has nothing for you unless you're lucky enough to get promoted out of it.
Click to expand...

If you are exceptional you can get promoted or find a better paying job somewhere else. No gun is being pointed at that persons head to remain at a union shop

Overall the US obsession with unions is rather strange

Unions today have far less power then they have had since the 50's yet people make them out to be some monsterous bogeeman responsible for the decline of the US (manufacturing generally. To which I would suggest taking a look at Germany. Where unions are far more powerfull, yet German manufacturing is still quite strong.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes I do

Given that any employee that is part of a union shop will benifit from the work of the union regarding labour contracts (wages and benifits) they should be expected to pay dues in order to pay for the representation the union providesThe person is not forced to join a union, he/she chooses to do so when they decide to accept a position at that place of employement (private or public).
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Why couldn't he negotiate his own wages and benefits?
I belonged to shop that never unionized. We voted it down every time. One of our branches voted it in one year. They never ended up better off than we did, in fact it had the opposite effect. They went on strike and ended up with less than they were offered to begin with. We got a larger raise than they did. After several years, they still didn't have better wages or benefits than we did, yet they were paying dues.
People should have the choice is all I'm saying.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If you are exceptional you can get promoted or find a better paying job somewhere else. No gun is being pointed at that persons head to remain at a union shopOverall the US obsession with unions is rather strange

Unions today have far less power then they have had since the 50's yet people make them out to be some monsterous bogeeman responsible for the decline of the US (manufacturing generally. To which I would suggest taking a look at Germany. Where unions are far more powerfull, yet German manufacturing is still quite strong.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is screw the guy who writes the paycheck. He can have the medicore employees and the exceptional ones can work elsewhere.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Unions dont have that power, people can work at non union places. They cant force you to work for Ford, you can go work for Toyota instead

If you want to work at a union shop, you benifit from the union and you pay union dues
Click to expand...

In the US for now this may be true but it may not always be. I cannot remember off the top of my head now, but I read about some European country that was upwards of 80% union. This would severely hamper people who did not wish to be a part of a union to find employment. And a country with a all union workforce gains nothing and actually loses.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Unions dont have that power, people can work at non union places. They cant force you to work for Ford, you can go work for Toyota instead

If you want to work at a union shop, you benifit from the union and you pay union dues
Click to expand...

I'm glad our economy is booming to the point people can just choose where they want to work.
 
Barbbtx said:
So what you are saying is screw the guy who writes the paycheck. He can have the medicore employees and the exceptional ones can work elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Or he can put into the contract performance bonus`s to be paid to employees who do exceptional work
 
Barbbtx said:
Not necessarily. Why couldn't he negotiate his own wages and benefits?
I belonged to shop that never unionized. We voted it down every time. One of our branches voted it in one year. They never ended up better off than we did, in fact it had the opposite effect. They went on strike and ended up with less than they were offered to begin with. We got a larger raise than they did. After several years, they still didn't have better wages or benefits than we did, yet they were paying dues.
People should have the choice is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

He certainly could try to negotiate his wages and benifits. He could threaten to withhold his labour as a means to pressure the company to increase wages and benifits and he could be shown the door with less disruption to the business then if the entire work force might withhold labour.

And people do have a choice. Your personal example shows it

Your shop is not unionized, another branch is. People were not forced to work at the other branch and could have left at any time
 
Barbbtx said:
I'm glad our economy is booming to the point people can just choose where they want to work.
Click to expand...

Are you being forced to work at the place you are at now, do you have no choice to leave and find other employement.


I am always being told the jobs in the US are there if only the lazy people would get off their buts and look for them
 
I have no problem with voluntary unions, but I am absolutely against any situation in which an employee is FORCED to join a union, just as I am against employers preventing workers from exercising their rights to voluntary unionize...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom