SCOTUS to Rule on Union: Could be "Radical" Change

I guess that flies in the face of the narrative presented here, doesn't it?

 

Companies can and do get kickbacks too.

 

I think it varies. Some employers will believe that anything that can possibly weaken the union is good and thus will not want all employees to be members. But on the other hand it can make life easier for management if they are dealing with one entity for all their non-management labor.

More importantly, though, is that employers can use union security agreements as a bargaining chip to get more concessions. And the closed shop might be a great way to gain concessions - at least in non-right-to-to-work states, obviously.

 

Why on earth would they want to deal with each employment agreement on an individual basis?

 

This explains why all of the largest workforces in the U.S. are unionized.

That is correct, isn't it?

 

I believe in freedom, freedom.

And that this shouldn't end at the steps of the highrise office building or the shop floor.

And your analogy here does little but highlight yet another, and more insidious tactics of the unions - "convincing" (read: threatening) the employer to only hire those who are in the union. How does this serve the employee coming in, exactly? The business?

It's obvious how it serves the union.....which may be all that matters.

 

I didn't realize that it was easier to deal with a unionized workforce, from a management position.

This must explain why so many businesses welcome unions in, and encourage their formation.

This is correct, isn't it?

 

you can have set wages by position and seniority without unions. somehow the non union companies seem to survive.

 

i'm guessing no given the fact that even new york is only like 25% union.

 

I worked at a race track that was unionized and because I was in management the owners told me if I joined the union that basically I wouldn't get promoted. I didn't want to join it anyway, but it did make it big pain in the ass because only union members were allowed to handle cash and I was the manager of one of the betting sites.

 

I am not sure I understand. I mean surely you would agree that non-union employees do not have complete freedom when it comes to their job. Some of it may require paying/spending money you do not wish to spend or being a member of an organization you do not really wish to be a member and other requirements.

And what is wrong with convincing or threatening? Isn't that what happens in most negotiations?
There are various ways such agreements can benefit employees, potential employees, and employers.

But perhaps more to the point, there is nothing forcing either side to agree to anything (except in right to work states where there is not ability to negotiate a closed shop).

 

You can do that, but it give you little security against workers saying "To hell with that." It's easy to tell the fry cook at McDonald's that's how things will be done. Try that on someone with leverage.

 

Am I supposed to care that the Wal Marts and McDonald's of the world aren't unionized? That's on the people working there.

 

why don't the unionized people have exactly the same leverage?

 

I never said it was easier. I said there could be and are, in fact, benefits.

When an employer is confronted with an organized workforce there seems to me to be nothing wrong with negotiating a closed shop - if that is what results from good faith negotiations.
I mean employers generally are not stupid - and if they are, tough - so giving that concessions should result in some other benefit to them - not to mention that the employer could see some benefit in the closed shop itself.

 

I love how the use of leverage is considered "threatening." If these high minded, oh so admirable businesses are so appalled at what the unions ask, don't do business with them. I'm sure there are scores of freedom minded, malleable hicks just lined up and qualified to take all those union malingerers places.

 

i'd have to think on a pure dollar basis that union dues dwarf said expenses on average by a wide margin. and as I said many companies pay for people to join said organizations. never have I've been forced to join an organization and pay my own money.

 

the non unionized auto plants seem to have no problem finding employees. and you think that people do business with the unions because they want to?

 

Once you sign a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, there are fairly draconian penalties for violating its terms without cause.

 

nothing is stopping them from quitting their job.