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

If they don't, then don't. Just don't bore me crying about collectively bargained contracts you sign. If the non union workforce is so vast and skilled, why on earth do any of the automakers bother to deal with the UAW? If they are so easily replaced, just [dadgum] replace them and move on. Don't bemoan a fate that you authored.

 

If that is true, and I am not saying it is, what is the argument?
That consitions of employment requiring spending money and/or being members of organizations should not be outlawed per se but only by degree?

We will allow conditions of employment that require spending $500 per year, but $501 is illegal?

 

The average turnover is 10% for shops with more than a quarter of workers in unions; it’s 12% where fewer than a quarter of workers are in unions.

http://manufacturingbenchmarks.com/labor-unions-and-employee-turnover/

I'm not seeing a big difference.

 

Nothing stops anyone from quitting their job. A collective baragianing agreement does, however, make it extremely hard to say "I'm not working til I get benefit X."

 

because they haven't had the balls to do it and they didn't want to shut down the plants to break the unions. there is absolutely zero evidence that unionized workers are any more skilled than non union.

 

the argument is you aren't making an apples to apples argument. these union dues are taken directly out of your paycheck with your approval or not. arguing that's the same as me sending $100 to the chamber of commerce every year is a bit silly. and arguing i'll get fired if I don't send said $100 is also silly. I do agree with you that they have the option of not working at a union job if they don't want to.

 

then I go and find someone who is willing to work without benefit X.

 

I am not sure why it would matter if it was taken out of a paycheck directly or not. Regardless, there are examples of non-union employees having money decuted from their paychecks for things they may not want to spend money on - all done as a condition of employment.

And I guess to the point - I see no reason to make it illegal for employers to do this.

 

So, it's management's problem. You're just a water carrier for them and trying to place blame on someone else for the cowardice rampant in American authority positions. I get it now.

 

Again, you're crying about unions when the solutions, as you see them, are wholly within the grasp of management. Makes perfect sense.

 

most unions members are in public unions in America.

 

if it was a simple solution my guess is it would have happened no?

 

That there are benefits of a closed-shop is not in dispute, but rather who the beneficiary is, instead.

What's the benefit to a closed shop for the business?

What's the benefit of the closed shop to applicants?

Once answered, please then explain how something so universally beneficial must be mandated by compulsory participation and funding. I mean, as you say, businesses aren't stupid. Seems that they'd go out of their way to realize and reap these benefits.

Finally, please explain why both new and future employees shouldn't be allowed to decide whether to participate in the union (as a "closed-shop" will require of them) or not. If the union is - as you say - providing an equitable benefit for the employees, commensurate with what they must pay in dues, it seems to me that anyone would do it, also not being stupid and all.

 

If nothing can "force" an employer to agree to any union demand, including a closed shop, from whence do the teeth from all of these threats arise, pray tell?

You can argue that companies choose to meet these demands, purely of their own good sense, or that they are made to agree to them - but I seems impossible to be both, if not at all, then certainly simultaneously.

 

Two of the most firmly established and financially viable businesses in the world - and two of its largest employers?

No, pay them no mind, I suppose.

Perhaps another example or two may be worth exploring? If you're open to that, may I recommend that we start at any auto manufacturer in the last 50 years, instead? Any one of several would be most excellent examples of the widespread "benefits" that a unionized workforce holds for any business (that is, not the stupid ones).

 

I actually agree with this.

Which is why I prefer Wal-Mart's method in dealing with any hint of its workers unionizing - turn off the lights, and lock the door behind you.

 

"Not one penny for tyrants!"

-GCBVol

 

Damn, that seemed easy enough.

Don't forget Dros, the only time that people should have to pay their own way, or their choices are in any way allowed to be infringed, is in the payment of union dues.

 

1. Dues don't have to come out of anyone's paycheck, unless they agree. I think we've had a breakthrough here.

2. What are these other deductions that come out of an employees paycheck, and which they have neither the means not right to refuse? Taxes, sure, but what else?

 

Maybe all the management guys you are cheerleading for are just, on the whole, incompetent dipshits. They certainly haven't implemented your rather straightforward fixes.