MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, November 22, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 50.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Let's Talk About Union Rights

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:59 pm

Marvell wrote:So - you would rather negotiate on your behalf rather than negotiating collectively throught a union. Do you get to choose who represents the company / government entity? Of course not. The company puts forward a negotiator, and you have to negotiate with them; it's not a matter of choice, and why would it? Imagine if there was no official representative of the employing entity: who would ever know who spoke for them?

Patently obvious, right? So how is it suddenly different when it comes to labor?


The company gets to pick who represents it as an entity. Why would anyone else have a say in that? The worker in this scenario on the other hand does not get to chose for themselves who is going to represent them but rather has had the role selected for them prior to ever entering into employment or membership in the union.

Your implication is that a person shouldn't have the choice as to who is representing them, and that was my whole point in the first place. Businesses have more choices in their affiliations than workers under a union contract.


Marvell wrote:Also, the 'fair share' requirement is based on the not-unreasonable position that, if you have benefited economically from the collective bargaining efforts of the union, then you should compensate the union for the effort they took on your behalf.


Agreed, my point remains however that you don't have the choice in taking those benefits rather than attempting to negotiate a better deal on your own.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby peripat » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:14 pm

So as a potential government employee, who will have the authority to negotiate those benefits with you? How much leeway will the hiring authority have? Also the hiring entity is not likely to be an elected public official. Now any contract must also be approved by the legislature and governor, so I assume they would need to approve each individual contract. Maybe we should negotiate in public meetings so members of the public get their input too. Yeah, that ought to work well.
peripat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Marvell » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:17 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:The company gets to pick who represents it as an entity.


But it only picks one person. The company does not have every manager out negotiating their own separate agreements, for reasons that should be blindingly obvious.

The company is engaging in collective action, because - even if manager A is a more effective negotiator than his superior B - it's still seen as being in the best interests of management to maintain a united front, and to negotiate from a single position. For reasons which should, again, be obvious to anyone who hasn't Galted their brain into mush.

Which is exactly the same thinking behind a union. Why this gets turned into 'ohmygodmyfreedomsskreeeeee' is sheerly a function of ideological blindness.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby jman111 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:43 pm

Marvell wrote:Which is exactly the same thinking behind a union. Why this gets turned into 'ohmygodmyfreedomsskreeeeee' is sheerly a function of ideological blindness.

Yeah, but unions aren't job creators; therefore, they deserve no consideration.

And, uh, something about thugs and wealthy, elite union bosses and some other stuff.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:04 pm

Marvell wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:The company gets to pick who represents it as an entity.


But it only picks one person. The company does not have every manager out negotiating their own separate agreements, for reasons that should be blindingly obvious.

The company is engaging in collective action, because - even if manager A is a more effective negotiator than his superior B - it's still seen as being in the best interests of management to maintain a united front, and to negotiate from a single position. For reasons which should, again, be obvious to anyone who hasn't Galted their brain into mush.

Which is exactly the same thinking behind a union. Why this gets turned into 'ohmygodmyfreedomsskreeeeee' is sheerly a function of ideological blindness.


The problem is that you are looking at management as a group that is negotiating a union contract as a collective body and selecting a person to represent them. This implies the contract is with management and not the company (or it's owners) itself. Realistically a manager only serves as a representative of the employer and terminating said manager (or even all managers) would have no effect on an existing contract between the union and the company.

The non-union model on the other hand often does give individual managers the ability to negotiate contracts (to some extent) with individual workers.

Neither model is necessarily bad, and both have strengths and weaknesses. Acting like either way is the best and only way to do things is pretty short sighted.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Mean Scenester » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:15 pm

Igor wrote:That is true - but most union members don't even know that, and the unions have fought it every step of the way.

Piffle.

Every new classified employee receives notice of their options upon being hired. If you "don't know" you can opt out, it's only because you didn't do your homework, just as if you don't opt for health insurance, it's your own damn fault.

Could someone who is/was a fair share payer and who objects to this model please chime in here?

Yeah ... I didn't think so. The only people with their thongs in a knot about this don't have anything to do with union employment. 'Cause ... you know ... they're sooooo concerned about the welfare of the state's represented working class, not because they're vindictive, ill-informed, envious pricks or anything.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby snoqueen » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:34 pm

Neither model is necessarily bad, and both have strengths and weaknesses. Acting like either way is the best and only way to do things is pretty short sighted.


True enough. However, municipalities and counties historically have seen management economies when dealing with a union instead of with employees one-by-one. The employer only has a few wage categories, each employee knows where he (she) is on the employment ladder, negotiation takes place once every year or two instead of every time someone is hired or asks for a raise, and the terms and expectations of employment are clear and uniform.

For example, when there's a snowstorm the highway department knows exactly what it'll be paying the plow drivers if overtime is needed. Without a union, all the experienced plow drivers could stand there and say "triple time or we don't go" and the county would pretty much have to concede. You don't find a couple dozen good new crew members in the middle of a snowstorm, and with expensive equipment and insurance issues you can't people on the road to learn on the job in whiteout conditions.

Uniform labor agreements make things much easier for the county and its human resources department, and better, safer public service (in this case, highway safety) is the result.

To outlaw this entire system is just as short-sighted as to declare it's the one and only way to do everything. If that's what you were saying, I agree. I would like to hear what individual WI counties have to say now that half a year unionless has passed -- at first, quite a few of them were not happy with Act 10.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11751
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:03 pm

snoqueen wrote:To outlaw this entire system is just as short-sighted as to declare it's the one and only way to do everything. If that's what you were saying, I agree. I would like to hear what individual WI counties have to say now that half a year unionless has passed -- at first, quite a few of them were not happy with Act 10.


Likewise I think there are some jobs that due to the nature of the work, lend themselves far better to a one by one contract environment. Software development would be a one example, though any job where individuals are involved in a skilled creative process would be similar. Can you imagine paying Maya Angelou on the same scale as the people who write Hallmark cards?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Igor » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:00 pm

Mean Scenester wrote:
Igor wrote:That is true - but most union members don't even know that, and the unions have fought it every step of the way.

Piffle.

Every new classified employee receives notice of their options upon being hired. If you "don't know" you can opt out, it's only because you didn't do your homework, just as if you don't opt for health insurance, it's your own damn fault.


Fair enough - I will rephrase. I am betting that most employees *in my bargaining unit* don't know they have the option to pay the reduced rate. I didn't say it was anyone's fault. To be fair, most of the employees in our unit were hired at a point when they did not have any of those options.
Igor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 11:48 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:05 pm

Again, no one is assigned union membership without their explicit agreement in writing, if for no other reason than to authorize the deduction of dues from their pay check.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Twinner » Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:05 am

Marvell wrote:To sum up:

You're a pompous moron. Repeat as needed.



Pure gold. Well done.
Twinner
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:03 pm
Location: East Sieeeda

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:20 am

Good golly, Marvell,

You mean the National Socialists (NAZIs as you call them) were not socialists?

Who knew?

I know a fair amount about socialism and they meet every definition I've ever seen.

Stated as simply as possible socialism is "Control of the means of production" Not necessarily "ownership" but control. As was the case of the German National Socialists as well as the the Italian Fascists (note capitalization in both cases)

Control was ostensibly for the benefit of the people.

It never is, though, is it? Socialism is always a scheme to loot by force from the creators for the benefit of a relatively small group. eg the "party" members.

John R Henry

PS-I will agree that German National Socialism was not Marxist international socialism. Some people (perhaps yourself?) think that if it is not Marxist, it is not "socialism".

Shows a lack of education, IMO. There are hundreds of flavors of socialism. Some Marxist, many predating Marx.
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:30 am

I am pretty knowlegable about unions and labor law. I taught it for 25 years.

First let me say that I take a back seat to nobody in my support of the right of workers to organize in unions. If workers feel a need to have someone bargain for them on their behalf, I think they are completely and fully entitled to that.

On the other hand, I do not think that employers are under any obligation to roll over and play dead. Union members can come and say "We want..." or we will go on strike. Management can decide, the cost of the strike is X, the cost of giving in is Y and make their decision.

Workers have a perfect right to quit their jobs either individually or en masse ie a strike. Management has, or should have, a perfect right to replace them when they do.

I am not talking about a contractual dispute here. That is a different animal.

So who needs who more? Does the employer need the employee more than the employee needs the employer?

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:41 am

Should the American automakers (Ford, Honda, Hyundai, govt motors et al) have the right to band together and determine how much cars should cost?

Currently a cartel like this is prohibited under the 120 year old Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

So if companies can't form cartels to artificially manipulate prices, why should individuals be allowed to?

Originally Sherman prevent this as well. The Clayton Act gave individuals an exception. (Sort of)

So all you unionistas have no problems with cartels?

Me, I do not. I believe in free markets. If Hyundai and govt motors want to set prices together, I am fine with that.

The market will take care of them eventually.

As it is doing with labor cartels. A/K/A unions.

Monopolies can only survive via the use of force which usually implies govt force. That is all that keeps unions alive today.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Let's Talk About Union Rights

Postby Detritus » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:54 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:I am pretty knowlegable about unions and labor law. I taught it for 25 years.

Really? Yet you insist on mischaracterizing both in your posts. For example, striking does not equal quitting; legally speaking, labor is not a commodity and therefore not subject to anti-trust laws; legally speaking, companies do not have "a perfect right" to replace striking workers--it is circumscribed by fair labor laws.

Also, there is no such entity as "govt motors" and half the car companies you mentioned are not based in the U.S.

Another toad to add to my list.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2507
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar