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

Yet, the brave patriots in management you are waiving the flag for aren't smart enough to pull it off. Man, they must be hardcore dumb****s to get worked by the unwashed union masses.

 

I've neither called them "brave patriots" nor "waived" any flag. I have not called union members "unwashed", either.

Is this the part where you completely derail, and just begin having an imaginary argument with the position you most prefer I have, instead of the one which I've actually made quite clear? I'll steady myself, if so.

 

So, all the babble about "freedom" was just meaningless posturing? Got it.

 

i'm cheerleading for management because I find union strong arm tactics less than perfect?

 

It should be noted that my greatest distaste is with public unions. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the GMs of the world. of course the UAW only survived because their buddy Obama directly violated bankruptcy law by bypassing the bondholders and giving the company directly to the UAW. So i'd hardly call that the free market at work.

 

How is it cowardice. The issue is short term decision making that kicked the can to the next management team. Every decision maker knew it would be someone else's issue, so giving in the near term for their own hides was easier than shutting down and losing under their own watch. Private companies can that idiocy because they have central decision making and often have a longer view. Private union shops are run by union folk.

 

Really isn't worked. The working has been incremental and all made short term gives to get back go work so they could keep killing it. The idiots you proclaim made the money and the union cats simply drove inflation enough to make their own products more expensive and maintain their lot in life. That's beautiful.

 

I believe that freedom is entirely separable from both patriotism and flag-waving, alike.

And forced participation in unions. That, too.

 

It's almost as if you're saying that unions are nothing more than a parasitic problem, and one that too many businesses in the past simply found it too easy and convenient to just consent and pass their nonsense along for others to deal with, later.

But, you can't be saying that, because it's an accepted truth that a unionized workforce is actually good for business. In fact, it's only the dumbest of companies who would pass up a chance for their workers to unionize - as such routinely leads to the hiring and retention of only the highest qualified and most competent employees, and the more efficient production or supply of goods and services, each being far superior to what any non-unionized workforce could possibly produce.*

Take UAW for example - look at all of the tens of thousands of jobs that remain in Detroit, thanks to the benefits which they brought to the table. *

So, you're not saying that, right?

*Please don't fact check any of this, and just take my word for it, instead. Recall, this is a "closed-shop" message board, where everyone is forced to consent and agree, whether they like it or not. Also, please send me 10-20% of your pay. Why? 'Cause I may do something that might somehow benefit you, down the road. Or, not. But just trust me, send it in. I'm best at making your choices for you.

 

There can be many:
1 - standardized contracts and treatment of every employee;
2 - a level of insulation from employee complaints. This, in fact, can be a big one. One thing employers have trouble with is emplyee complaints given that often employees are not able to communicate in a way that is fully understandable. Having somewhat trained union stewards who are required to be the first step in a grievance process can be of huge help to avoid potential troubles;
3 - avoiding duplicity of services, particularly in human resources. Unions often are responsible for some of the HR issues - like grievances we talked about, but other things as well. Having the union be able to handle all of these as opposed to having to set up some system for non-union employees is certainly a benefit;
4 - employee morale - having a closed shop can increase employee cohesiveness as opposed to having a divided workplace that can create and/or inflame conflict.

There are others as well, but that is a start.

Why should there be any benefit to applicants? they were not of the bargaining. I would say the benefit only accrues once the applicant is hired.

Again 0- I am not saying that a closed shop is necessarily superior to an open shop, just that there are benefits to a closed shop. Some companies, however, do like closed shops to the extent that they agree to have them and, in fact, defend them to some extent.

I do not understand psychology, but I know enough to know that some people are extremely greedy as well as short-sighted. Of course, some people are also just really really opposed to unions on ideological grounds.

 

A closed shop is not the only demand (if it even is made) in a union negotiation. there are a lot of demands being thrown about. Sometimes you give a little on something in an effort to take somewhere else.
Perhaps I am not being clear - I am not arguing that closed shop is necessarily good (or bad, for that matter) for an employer. i will say, all things being equal, there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of employers would not want a unionized workforce not a closed shop. But that does not mean there cannot be some benefit to them. And more to the point I am trying to make - an employer will get more out of negotiations, imo, with being able to negotiate a closed shop as opposed to not being able to negotiate.

Now I will say that not being able to have a closed shop might decrease union formation - I do not know. But once the requirement to negotiate is met, ie 50%+ get their card, then I think having the thing on the table is a potential benefit to both sides.

 

There is a multitude of deductions that can come out of an employee's paycheck - essentially anything that an employer and employee agree, normally as a condition of employment. Granted there are laws that limit such deductions, but those are usually only related to wage issues.

 

I have some problems with public unions as well, although probably not as strongly as you. But your point earlier is the biggest problem I have.

 

I am bothered by this "forced participation" language.

Are you on a campaign to stop architecture firms from forcing their employees from being members of the AIA? Are you fighting against law firms forcing their employees from members of state and local bar assocations?

 

Are you equating professional designations and regulated requirements for working in a state to union membership?

 

I think it's rather short sited to expect to be paid well above market wages and then expect your company to be internationally competitive long term enough for your job to be there in 10 years. The uaw is a perfect example. Demanded and got their employees wages and benefits 40 percent higher than their competition in a business where you have to be price competitive and then wondered why the quality of the cars produced started to drop and the layoffs started coming.

 

No.
Being a member of the AIA is not a requirement for practicing architecture. Nr is being a member of state or local bar associations for being a lawyer. And of course there are far more examples to use - I am just pointing these two out.

 

That is fine. I am not going to argue against that. I should not have said that above because it is something I am not really interested in debating/talking about.

 

I'm a member of the cfa society, cfp board, and i have a series 3, 7, 65, 66 and an insurance license. I've never had a company where I've been expected to pay for these things personally.

 

If financial payments and/or association as a condition of employment is a concern then what should the legal limits be?
I mean we operate in a relatively liberal at-will environment. If the opposition to closed-shop is based on financial or freedom of association reasons then what is a principled and equitable standard.

While western europe and other industrialized areas are more prone to restrict the closed shop those areas are also far more restrictive on freedom to contract and more specifically at-will employment. Is that where we should head?