Union Teachers ditch to attend anti-RTW rally

[Melocoton]

All of that is very true and this country owes an enormous debt to those people. But most of the things they fought for have been codified into labor law

No, they haven't, and in any case labor law is powerless to negotiate wages and benefits in the workplace, as is amply demonstrated by the poverty wages in RTW states. If you are working on an unsafe machine, in an asbestos-filled classroom, or under a sexually harassing supervisor, which would you rather do: walk upstairs and file a grievance covered by a contract, or go to Washington and wait two years for the NLRB in Washington, DC to hear your case and issue a ruling [[which, if there's a Republican president, will probably go against you anyway) that they be unable to ever enforce, given the weakness of labor law?

[Novine]

If your employer agreed that all employees have to belong to a union to work at the company, that's on your employer, not the union. Conservatives consider the business-employee relationship sacrosant and should be free of government meddling, like minimum wages or any other labor laws. Except in this regard when they have no problem telling employers what kinds of rules they should have.

[Meddle]

I have a hard time feeling sorry for "struggling industries" that pay CEOs 400x the average worker.

I don't support that either. I've always said belt-tightening should begin at the top. No pay or benefits cuts for workers until the top brass takes bigger cuts.

But union racketeering has never had any effect on that and never will. Instead, you end up with mob bosses stealing from the rank and file. The worker gets screwed twice.

[Meddle]

If your employer agreed that all employees have to belong to a union to work at the company, that's on your employer, not the union.

Companies don't decide that unless they are extorted/blackmailed into doing so.

[Hermod]

Companies don't decide that unless they are extorted/blackmailed into doing so.

In RTW states, all shops are "open shops" because the employer and the union cannot negotiate "closed shop" or "agency shop" contracts.

[Novine]

Just like CEOs extort/blackmail the Board of Directors to give them multi-million dollar golden parachute compensation agreements?

To the point that anyone is forced to join the union, it reminds me of the people who complain about residency laws in the public sector. If you choose to take a job that requires you to live in a community, that's your choice. Likewise, if you choose to take a job that requires you to join a union, that's your choice. It's interesting to see conservatives who don't think government should tell employers what wage to pay you or what benefits to offer you or to be able to dictate any other condition of employment thinks it's the government's job to dictate to your employer on this single issue.

[hhockey]

A little information: Corporate profits are at an all time high while workers wages as a percentage of the economy have plummeted to record lows. So much of
rtw and decent wages.

[Wesley Mouch]

Just like CEOs extort/blackmail the Board of Directors to give them multi-million dollar golden parachute compensation agreements?

To the point that anyone is forced to join the union, it reminds me of the people who complain about residency laws in the public sector. If you choose to take a job that requires you to live in a community, that's your choice. Likewise, if you choose to take a job that requires you to join a union, that's your choice. It's interesting to see conservatives who don't think government should tell employers what wage to pay you or what benefits to offer you or to be able to dictate any other condition of employment thinks it's the government's job to dictate to your employer on this single issue.

Or like smoking laws... if you don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, you don't have to take the job.

What I have observed here is that we apply the logic to the situation that benefits our cause. I hope we can all see that we are biased -- one hopes towards higher goals and not out of greed.

I've done some thinking about the issue of compulsory dues. I suppose technically it isn't really union membership. Point to the left. But frankly, what's the difference. In my practical experience, union membership was effectively required. I suppose there was the fig leaf that you could only pay the non-advocacy part of the dues. Nobody did. Membership in your Union is effectively required. Go try and get a job at a Union shop without membership. I'd like to hear the stories about that.

This idea of 'lies' is quite popular. The other side always lies. Snyder lies. Obama lies. Whoever you disagree with lies. Is this really the case?

Is it a lie that Unions care about workers? No. Does the right think they only care about dues money to pay their union management salaries and to advocate for their point of view? Some do. There's a perception on both sides of 'lies'. I think we need to retire the word. Its not helpful to paint others so.

[noise]

After six pages of absurd rhetoric in this thread on the other side of the issue, Meddle is being "detrimental"?

It wasn't personal. It's an across-the-board condemnation.

[noise]

It wouldn't be as big of a deal if those fees we're used for legal representation and collectively bargaining only.

However, that's not the case. The bulk of union dues go to supporting political candidates, that you may or may not support.

My wife, who is in the MEA, to my knowledge isn't a straight-ticket democrat. Although we don't always discuss politics, I know on several occasions she's voted for folks that SHE was paying money to run ads against.

Pretty silly stuff.

For those of you saying that we already had choice to join a union or not, then you shouldn't be concerned at all. In your mind there's no change between yesterday and today!

The union should be able to support its own best interests, even if the employee is too stupid to realize it.

[noise]

Or like smoking laws... if you don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, you don't have to take the job.

That's a backwards comparison. You can choose to be a non-union worker, but not in a union environment. You can choose to smoke, but not in a non-smoking environment. It's YOUR choice about YOUR actions. Nobody is saying you can't do either. You just can't do certain things in certain settings. This is law. This is life.

[Scottathew]

The union should be able to support its own best interests, even if the employee is too stupid to realize it.

It's that kind of talk and attitude that makes folk even more anti-union.

Imagine if republican owned companies started forcing employees to pay money so that they could use it to support republican candidates...

I don't think you'd like that.

[noise]

It's that kind of talk and attitude that makes folk even more anti-union.

Imagine if republican owned companies started forcing employees to pay money so that they could use it to support republican candidates...

I don't think you'd like that.

The unions don't own companies and you have a choice whether or not to join. There are plenty of republican-owned companies that use their earnings to support republican candidates. I can choose not to support those companies. That's all fine by me.

Stupid is as stupid does. Nothing anyone says here will correct that.

[JVB]

The union should be able to support its own best interests, even if the employee is too stupid to realize it.

This statement right here, is quite telling.

This is how "the group" tends to think of their members. This is at the heart of the difference between individualism vs. collectivism. An individualist thinks that people are smart enough to make their own decisions, whereas a collectivist thinks people need to be babysat for their own good.

You can expand that thought out and see it rooted in a lot of progressive ideas. People are not smart enough to watch how much soda they drink, so we'll outlaw anything over 16oz like NYC just did. You see it across the board, and not just from progressives, but all of the Big Government types on both sides of the aisle.

[detroitsgwenivere]

I've heard the issue regarding political contributions and the unions come up on this thread a few times now, obviously a legitimate gripe. But i wonder why no one bothers to bring up CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM as a possible answer to this.

[Wesley Mouch]

I've heard the issue regarding political contributions and the unions come up on this thread a few times now, obviously a legitimate gripe. But i wonder why no one bothers to bring up CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM as a possible answer to this.

Because Campaign Finance reform is misguided. There's no problem with how we finance campaigns. Look at what happened to Maroun. The public may take a while to catch up -- but in the end they tend to do the right thing. Limiting contributions and limiting free speech is a mistake.

As to this issue -- I have no problem with Unions funding political advertising. So long as the employees have the right to not join or participate in the Union and support activities they disagree with. Freedom is a good idea. Control of political campaigns is not.

[noise]

Because Campaign Finance reform is misguided. There's no problem with how we finance campaigns. Look at what happened to Maroun. The public may take a while to catch up -- but in the end they tend to do the right thing. Limiting contributions and limiting free speech is a mistake.

As to this issue -- I have no problem with Unions funding political advertising. So long as the employees have the right to not join or participate in the Union and support activities they disagree with. Freedom is a good idea. Control of political campaigns is not.

Employees have the choice of not being an employee where they have to join a union.

[Det_ard]

Employees have the choice of not being an employee where they have to join a union.

Following that reasoning, employees have the choice of not working in dangerous conditions, or for minimum wage [[or below), or for Wal-Mart, or for an employer that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race, age, religion, ethnicity, etc...

Does this line of reasoning thus invalidate all those other liberal causes célèbre?

[Wesley Mouch]

Following that reasoning, employees have the choice of not working in dangerous conditions, or for minimum wage [[or below), or for Wal-Mart, or for an employer that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race, age, religion, ethnicity, etc...

Does this line of reasoning thus invalidate all those other liberal causes célèbre?

Glad you made this statement. Obvious contradiction in liberal thought.

I also think we need to deflate the thinking bubble that you can already opt-out of joining a Union -- if say you want to work for the government. The logic presented is that you can choose not go join -- and only pay an equivalent assessment for your 'administrative' cost to the Union. HA! How do you think the Unions compute their 'political activity' cost? Does it include a proportional share of their administrative costs? When Bob King goes on Craig Fahle to tear Synder apart, is that time, travel, phone, and his support staff get counted as 'political activity'? I'll bet not.

Does anyone know what percentage of money the UAW spends on political activities? Is this the same as the difference between Union dues and 'non-member assessment'?

I do accept that the Union has 100% right to speak for itself and its members. As long as members can opt out of membership and not be compelled to fund ANY costs related to anything political.

btw, is anyone else offended that the City of Detroit pays DWSD employees to do Union work? Do you suppose they're prohibited from any advocacy / political activity?

[Bham1982]

Following that reasoning, employees have the choice of not working in dangerous conditions, or for minimum wage [[or below), or for Wal-Mart, or for an employer that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race, age, religion, ethnicity, etc...

That isn't analagous reasoning.

In the first case, you're talking about an issue of choice. In the second one, you're talking about protection from lawbreaking.

[leapfrog]

Because Campaign Finance reform is misguided. There's no problem with how we finance campaigns. Look at what happened to Maroun. The public may take a while to catch up -- but in the end they tend to do the right thing. Limiting contributions and limiting free speech is a mistake.

As to this issue -- I have no problem with Unions funding political advertising. So long as the employees have the right to not join or participate in the Union and support activities they disagree with. Freedom is a good idea. Control of political campaigns is not.

Statements like the one bolded above make you lose credibility IMO. How anyone can honestly look at how we finance campaigns and say there is no problem is just denying reality.

[Wesley Mouch]

Statements like the one bolded above make you lose credibility IMO. How anyone can honestly look at how we finance campaigns and say there is no problem is just denying reality.

I am 100% in favor of free speech. Its a very simple concept. I think the reality is that limiting speech is very dangerous. You don't have to read much history to see what happens when the media is restricted. Democracy is messy, and we sometimes get things wrong. But when Maroun's money gets slapped down, we see that truth can win over highly-funded deception. Let the money and speech flow!

But back to the thread... teachers and all Union workers should read the following article about who wins and loses with RTW. The biggest power shift will be within the rank and file. http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-mi...k_law_wil.html

[Melocoton]

I've heard the issue regarding political contributions and the unions come up on this thread a few times now, obviously a legitimate gripe. But i wonder why no one bothers to bring up CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM as a possible answer to this.

Many people on this thread are misinformed about this [[as well as a lot of other things). Political contributions are not a legitimate issue here: union members already have the right to refuse to allow their dues to be used for political campaigning, by registering as "agency fee payers," rather than normal dues-paying members [["agency fee payers" still get the benefits of collective bargaining, but their dues are only used for union operations in the workplace). Any discussion of political contributions as a justification for RTW is a red herring, therefore.

It does lay bare one of the Republican rationales for Right-To-Work: not giving workers more "choices," as they cynically claim, but decimating their political opposition.

And as far as I'm concerned EastsideAl settled this whole debate about 4 pages ago.

[Wesley Mouch]

Many people on this thread are misinformed about this [[as well as a lot of other things). Political contributions are not a legitimate issue here: union members already have the right to refuse to allow their dues to be used for political campaigning, by registering as "agency fee payers," rather than normal dues-paying members [["agency fee payers" still get the benefits of collective bargaining, but their dues are only used for union operations in the workplace). Any discussion of political contributions as a justification for RTW is a red herring, therefore.

It does lay bare one of the Republican rationales for Right-To-Work: not giving workers more "choices," as they cynically claim, but decimating their political opposition.

And as far as I'm concerned EastsideAl settled this whole debate about 4 pages ago.

Can anyone enlighten on cost of 'agency fees' vs. 'dues' in the real world. I'm hearing that 'agency fees' are equal to 'dues'. And I'm hearing that they are a 'fraction' of the dues.

Does anyone know?

In the meantime, I found on google...
1) UCalif Santa Cruz [[CWA): agency fee is same as Union dues
2) Mass University Staff Assoc. [[Mass Teachers Assoc): $17 dues, $10 agency fee
3) Wayne State AAUP-AFT: fee is 62.5% of union dues

[DetroitTeacher]

In DPS, agency fees are the same as dues. My dues run me almost a hundred a month.

Can anyone enlighten on cost of 'agency fees' vs. 'dues' in the real world. I'm hearing that 'agency fees' are equal to 'dues'. And I'm hearing that they are a 'fraction' of the dues.

Does anyone know?

In the meantime, I found on google...
1) UCalif Santa Cruz [[CWA): agency fee is same as Union dues
2) Mass University Staff Assoc. [[Mass Teachers Assoc): $17 dues, $10 agency fee
3) Wayne State AAUP-AFT: fee is 62.5% of union dues