South Carolina Boeing workers reject unionization bid

[phillygirl]

They're doing something wrong. When my father ran for judge, after the election, he threw a big party with the extra contributions that he didn't need for the election. It was about the only thing that was legal for him to do with the excess money.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

In my county they run as a party. The top sellers help to kick in for the bottom rung (sherif, etc.). There's always a "need" for money.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Are lawyers forced to pay dues to the Bar?

In all states in which I'm admitted to practice, yes.

There may still be a few that don't require bar membership. I don't know of any.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Yep, your caviler dismissal of an entire group through sarcasm and bigotry.

That's it exactly.

I assume you would be annoyed if others characterized your group dismissively.

Are you even reading my posts?

[scott]

It's their choice.

But I do have to ask, why is the "right" to not join a union (which every worker already has) called "right to work?"

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Every worker does not have that right if the only jobs available are union jobs.

[scott]

Creative reading, Ginger. I could have sworn I was demeaning a government in league with union-busting corporations.

No, all worker protections are NOT in federal law. "At-will" employment means that no matter how well you do your job and how pleasant you are, if the manager wants to fire you and hire his cousin, an eminently unqualified drunk, to take your place, you have no job security.

Congratulations on having selected a profession that gives you all the benefits of unionization without having to pay dues. Some people aren't as smart or lucky as you.

As opposed to not being able to join the union because some union asshole gives jobe to his incompetent cousin?

I don't see the benefit here.

[Djharkavy]

Every worker does not have that right if the only jobs available are union jobs.

Incorrect. You have to pay agency fees to cover negotiation and other professional costs, but you don't need to join the union and you certainly don't need to pay for political action. I cited the case earlier.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[scott]

Incorrect. You have to pay agency fees to cover negotiation and other professional costs, but you don't need to join the union and you certainly don't need to pay for political action. I cited the case earlier.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Ah. So you don't have to join but you have to pay the same.

Distinction without a difference. Ever thought an individual could negotiate a better package?

No choice in your world.

[Djharkavy]

Ah. So you don't have to join but you have to pay the same.

Nope. Not the same. Significantly less than a member.

And since federal law requires that a union defend anyone at the work site should the employer violate the contact, whether they are a member or not, those fees seem appropriate to me.

Distinction without a difference.

The part is less than the whole. Looks like a difference to me.

Ever thought an individual could negotiate a better package?

Perhaps a few, but not as a whole. There are very few individual workers who have the bargaining power that the employer does.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Celeste Chalfonte]

As opposed to not being able to join the union because some union asshole gives jobe to his incompetent cousin?

I don't see the benefit here.

I don't know what unions you've dealt with. None of the ones I've ever dealt with had that option. I acknowledge that my experience is not universal, but it is fairly broad. I have extensively interacted with (as a member, an attorney for the union or as an attorney for employers) public-sector unions, Northern California Carpenters, numerous SEIU chapters, AFSCME, California Nurses' Association, SF Interns and Residents' Association, longshore unions, janitors' unions, hotel and restaurant workers' unions, Stationary Engineers, teachers' unions, California Teamsters and UFW, just that I can recall off the top of my head. I have encountered no situations such as you describe here. I've heard both employers and union members complain bitterly about the union, but not because of nepotism. Usually when members complain, it's that the union didn't protect some imagined "right" that exists only in their fantasies, like the "right" to keep getting paid indefinitely or keep their job when they're physically unable to do the essential functions of it.

But then, I've never heard of anyone getting the kind of pressure from the Bar Association that Philly described, so apparently there are places where corruption is far more prevalent than I have ever encountered.

Doesn't change the fact that "all the union protections" are NOT enshrined in federal law. If they were, employers wouldn't negotiate contracts; they'd just hand over a copy of the federal law.

[scott]

Nope. Not the same. Significantly less than a member.

And since federal law requires that a union defend anyone at the work site should the employer violate the contact, whether they are a member or not, those fees seem appropriate to me.



The part is less than the whole. Looks like a difference to me.



Perhaps a few, but not as a whole. There are very few individual workers who have the bargaining power that the employer does.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Teachers that complain about pay have their own unions to thank. I know many teachers doing quite well on their own and they don't have to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If that system works for you, great! I think it's silly to force that on everyone though.

[scott]

I don't know what unions you've dealt with. None of the ones I've ever dealt with had that option. I acknowledge that my experience is not universal, but it is fairly broad. I have extensively interacted with (as a member, an attorney for the union or as an attorney for employers) public-sector unions, Northern California Carpenters, numerous SEIU chapters, AFSCME, California Nurses' Association, SF Interns and Residents' Association, longshore unions, janitors' unions, hotel and restaurant workers' unions, Stationary Engineers, teachers' unions, California Teamsters and UFW, just that I can recall off the top of my head. I have encountered no situations such as you describe here. I've heard both employers and union members complain bitterly about the union, but not because of nepotism. Usually when members complain, it's that the union didn't protect some imagined "right" that exists only in their fantasies, like the "right" to keep getting paid indefinitely or keep their job when they're physically unable to do the essential functions of it.

But then, I've never heard of anyone getting the kind of pressure from the Bar Association that Philly described, so apparently there are places where corruption is far more prevalent than I have ever encountered.

Doesn't change the fact that "all the union protections" are NOT enshrined in federal law. If they were, employers wouldn't negotiate contracts; they'd just hand over a copy of the federal law.

Go try to start a garbage collection service in New York. You'll see the nepotism and corruption that you say is so rare. Go try to join the IBEW without permission from the local organizer. That permission is not cheap (*wink wink).

[Djharkavy]

Teachers that complain about pay have their own unions to thank. I know many teachers doing quite well on their own and they don't have to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If that system works for you, great! I think it's silly to force that on everyone though.

Do they make as much as equally qualified people in other fields?

What did you mean, on their own? Do they not have colleagues? Do they negotiate blind, or do they start from a particular level? If they are paid better than their colleagues, why are they worth more?

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Newman]

I strongly support collective bargaining, allowing a union to represent individuals negotiating wages and working conditions.

Where I think unions killed the golden goose was the decision to entangle themselves in partisan politics. Union muscle has been useful to any number of players, from Jimmy Hoffa to Barack Obama.

When I attended town hall meetings as part of an amorphous "tea party" crowd, it was SEIU members (they had the T shirts) who were literally bused in to block the doorways and shout down speakers. [I'd love to see union organizers try to win any business remotely connected to anyone who witnessed their bullying behavior then.]

Teachers unions don't provide "muscle" per se (sorry, Melissa Click, ex-Prof.) but numbers aplenty, in demonstrations (in support of OWS, for example), and in phone banks, among other venues.

Teachers portray their union concerns as "for the children," and thus for any policy they deem supportive, which unsurprisingly falls generally under the "caring," liberal umbrella. But the union is properly concerned with their jobs, not with the children.

So it's hardly surprising when the teachers union opposes school choice. They can dress it up all they want; the issue is jobs. Their jobs.

Over time the misuse of unions has wiped out their credibility, that and the calamitous overreach allowed union contracts back when American corporations and government enablers saw no downside to outrageously disproportionate labor costs. The husk of Detroit testifies to their wisdom.

The Democrats and their union muscle sealed their doom, if you ask me, by their desperate support of the so-called "card check" campaign. It was obvious to most two-year-olds that this was simply an anti-democratic maneuver to thwart those pesky workers who keep defeating union certification elections.

Americans soundly rejected such Stalinesque techniques; they believe what their eyes see in the rust belt relics of unionized, industrial America; and they reject the fiercely liberal politics these unions endorse.

As a result, unions barely exist outside the public sector. Just desserts, I think.

[scott]

Do they make as much as equally qualified people in other fields?

Yes.

What did you mean, on their own? Do they not have colleagues? Do they negotiate blind, or do they start from a particular level?

They prove their worth to the organization and make their case for the pay they want.

If they are paid better than their colleagues, why are they worth more?

They work harder, they have skills/experience that are worth more to the organization, they look for opportunities, pretty much how most successful adults operate.

[scott]

When I attended town hall meetings as part of an amorphous "tea party" crowd, it was SEIU members (they had the T shirts) who were literally bused in to block the doorways and shout down speakers.

The irony is that these paid demonstrators were scab labor. That there is funny.