SCOTUS deals public sector unions a blow

[Aquila]

A lot of unions strongly oppose the right to work and employed at will laws. This is for several reasons.

First, the notion undercuts the idea that workers should hold stock, share, and say with regards to their labor, wages, benefits, policies, and working conditions.

Second, with the way the contract is written, some at will employees will still benefit from set wages and benefits the union has fought for. Some will still benefit from the disciplinary procedures negotiated by the union. As a result, the union may find itself negotiating and/or defending an employee who has opted out of contributing to the union, and so they are out on a limb arbitrating for a non-member, for whom they have no real legal basis on which to defend should the grievance proceed to lawsuit.

Third, employers can begin hiring cheaper labor off the street with less, or no experience, in comparison to that which was established as being required according to the union contract. As a result, the employer can remove the union through attrition and hire off the street, or even gain leverage to force the union to agree to lower wages and less benefits upon renegotiating a new contract. As a result, all the bargaining for wages, benefits, and conditions that the union has fought for are now null and void. All the workers now take pay cuts and cuts to benefits just to remain employed.

From a union perspective, its becomes a path to lower wages and fewer benefits for all... even the at will employee. And so, the desire to not pay union dues and be a union member in a union shop is seen as the individual actually acting against their own best interests, and endangering the income and livelihood of all union members. Not to mention, if hired off the street with less experience, the quality of work relating to the product and service can likely go down while the price often remains the same, thereby even hurting the consumer economically.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

who defines "fair treatment" in these cases.
From what ive seen from middle management where ive been with union representation is that it was a disadvantage for the workers. We were not allowed to reward hard work and dedication with pay increases for individuals unless everyone received a pay increase and this took the incentive to achieve out of the minds of the workforce. Im sure not everywhere is the same but as for what ive seen the union took away the desire and ability to advance. basically took away the company's ability to reward their employees.

There is that in some workplaces.
Some unions are not receptive to rewarding some workers above others.
However, some are ok with it, so long as they are made to feel as part of the process.
Now, don't read me wrong. I would much rather not deal with a union.
But, I have been around enough execs and managers to know that in some places a union is necessary.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A lot of unions strongly oppose the right to work and employed at will laws. This is for several reasons.

First, the notion undercuts the idea that workers should hold stock, share, and say with regards to their labor, wages, benefits, policies, and working conditions.

Second, with the way the contract is written, some at will employees will still benefit from set wages and benefits the union has fought for. Some will still benefit from the disciplinary procedures negotiated by the union. As a result, the union may find itself negotiating and/or defending an employee who has opted out of contributing to the union, and so they are out on a limb arbitrating for a non-member, for whom they have no real legal basis on which to defend should the grievance proceed to lawsuit.

Third, employers can begin hiring cheaper labor off the street with less, or no experience, in comparison to that which was established as being required according to the union contract. As a result, the employer can remove the union through attrition and hire off the street, or even gain leverage to force the union to agree to lower wages and less benefits upon renegotiating a new contract. As a result, all the bargaining for wages, benefits, and conditions that the union has fought for are now null and void. All the workers now take pay cuts and cuts to benefits just to remain employed.

From a union perspective, its becomes a path to lower wages and fewer benefits for all... even the at will employee. And so, the desire to not pay union dues and be a union member in a union shop is seen as the individual actually acting against their own best interests, and endangering the income and livelihood of all union members. Not to mention, if hired off the street with less experience, the quality of work relating to the product and service can likely go down while the price often remains the same, thereby even hurting the consumer economically.

A - that is the PR put out by the unions.
But the most important thing is that the union loses a steady stream of revenue.
The most important thing in a contract to a union is "checkoff". What this means is that the company will automatically take out the union dues and remit it to the union.
This keeps the union from having to manually collect dues, which is a hassle.

I started off my early work life as a union steward, then moved into working for the union as an organizer and contract negotiator.
So, I know a "little bit" about unions!

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Third, employers can begin hiring cheaper labor off the street with less, or no experience, in comparison to that which was established as being required according to the union contract. As a result, the employer can remove the union through attrition and hire off the street, or even gain leverage to force the union to agree to lower wages and less benefits upon renegotiating a new contract. As a result, all the bargaining for wages, benefits, and conditions that the union has fought for are now null and void. All the workers now take pay cuts and cuts to benefits just to remain employed.

On the flip side of that, a non-union member could have far greater skill and experience than some of the union members, and - if forced to be part of the union - would find themselves limited in their pay and bonuses. They may be able to earn significantly more due to their knowledge and experience, but would be dragged down by the rest of the union members.

Those bell curves work both ways.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

There is that in some workplaces.
Some unions are not receptive to rewarding some workers above others.
However, some are ok with it, so long as they are made to feel as part of the process.
Now, don't read me wrong. I would much rather not deal with a union.
But, I have been around enough execs and managers to know that in some places a union is necessary.

So very true.

I've seen a lot of what is mentioned here. But what our union continues to go back to is that a contract is a contract. And the contract was voted on by membership and negotiated with management. All are agreed parties. If incentives are a concern of management, or the union, they should be brought up during the negotiation of the contract. Incentives for us are often outside of contract and are left to management discretion. For example, someone with exemplary performance might receive free tickets (limit 6) to the Dayton Air Show (I received these this year), a season pass for a sporting event, tickets to an art exhibit or musical performance, or a gift certificate for a given dollar amount. We also have employee recognition.

As you said above, the most important factor is that all are made to feel like they are a part of the process and have a voice.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - that is the PR put out by the unions.
But the most important thing is that the union loses a steady stream of revenue.
The most important thing in a contract to a union is "checkoff". What this means is that the company will automatically take out the union dues and remit it to the union.
This keeps the union from having to manually collect dues, which is a hassle.

I started off my early work life as a union steward, then moved into working for the union as an organizer and contract negotiator.
So, I know a "little bit" about unions!

I was once asked to be a steward and I turned it down. I don't like getting too deeply involved in the union's politics. So, my perspective is more from the rank and file, not union leadership. Union leadership can be just as corrupt or underhanded as any other leadership.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

On the flip side of that, a non-union member could have far greater skill and experience than some of the union members, and - if forced to be part of the union - would find themselves limited in their pay and bonuses. They may be able to earn significantly more due to their knowledge and experience, but would be dragged down by the rest of the union members.

Those bell curves work both ways.

That's true.

But wouldn't one so skilled have more options regarding employment and good pay than the average local union worker? If the shop doesn't pay enough, certainly his skills can earn a good living elsewhere. But Joe Worker without that level of skill doesn't have as many options available. And what he has, the union has fought for, and he has contributed to. So, his pay, benefits, and family economic stability are in more danger than Mr. Skilled.

Then there's this...

Let's say that management hires Mr. Skilled at will for great pay. Then Mr. Skilled finds a better opportunity from somewhere else and leaves. Hiring Mr. Skilled in this manner opened the door for cheap labor. Now everything the union has fought for is in danger. All for Mr. Skilled.

In light of the general idea of union solidarity, doesn't Mr. Skilled seem a bit self-centered with little regard for the damage to family income left in his wake? And knowing how management will no doubt seek an opportunity to save money and increase profits (it's there job), this becomes downward spiral to less pay and benefits for the workers who have perhaps put in decades of their lives in the shop, negotiating for what they have.

From the rank and file perspective, these guys are a threat to not only union solidarity, but the economic stability of the entire family of every member.

It comes off looking like just another way to evade a union contract and ultimately get cheap labor, with perhaps only a few highly paid darlings, if management is lucky.

[Aquila]

I often hear believers complaining that they have to work on church nights and on Sundays. One thing I like is that our union has negotiated paid time off for religious holidays and days of worship. Since 2004, I've never had an issue with having to work instead of going to church. lol

Before becoming union, employers would often present the hours they need filled, and if it was a church night, I either had to turn down the job or miss church.

While I don't agree with the union's politics all the time, it's been good to me.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I often hear believers complaining that they have to work on church nights and on Sundays.

Never been in a union and never had to work Sundays or Wednesdays. Most jobs I've worked have been first shift hours, but in the rare jobs I've had on second or third shifts, I typically haven't had an issue. I've always made it clear in the interview that I do not work on Sundays or mid-week service nights.

There was one tech support job I had in which new management came in and told me any previous agreement with prior management was not going to be honored. They scheduled me (I believe on purpose) to work both on Sundays and on Wednesday evening. I put in my notice and quit.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's say that management hires Mr. Skilled at will for great pay. Then Mr. Skilled finds a better opportunity from somewhere else and leaves. Hiring Mr. Skilled in this manner opened the door for cheap labor. Now everything the union has fought for is in danger. All for Mr. Skilled.

Your argument makes no sense to me. How can one guy getting hired at higher wages, make it easier for the company to hire at lower wages? Sounds to me like you're for socialized "work".

"Equal pay for all (regardless of work performance)"

That's what your argument comes across as to me. Personally, I'm for merit-based pay. You're paid what you earn through your performance. If you're a low-skilled, low-value employee, then you'll make a lower wage. If you're a high-skilled, high-value employee, then you'll make a higher wage. Then again, I'm not a socialist.

Originally Posted by n david

Never been in a union and never had to work Sundays or Wednesdays. Most jobs I've worked have been first shift hours, but in the rare jobs I've had on second or third shifts, I typically haven't had an issue. I've always made it clear in the interview that I do not work on Sundays or mid-week service nights.

There was one tech support job I had in which new management came in and told me any previous agreement with prior management was not going to be honored. They scheduled me (I believe on purpose) to work both on Sundays and on Wednesday evening. I put in my notice and quit.

I've never worked a job that required me to work Sundays, either. I had one position that I offered to work (3rd shift) Saturday nights into Sunday morning IF there was an emergency. They scheduled me 2x in a row on Sat-Sun and also Sun-Mon, at which point I told them flat out that I would not do it again. They abused my generosity, and so I withdrew my offer. I didn't even have to quit, and no union needed.