Export thread
Michigan legislature passes right to work bill
#1
strawman
strawman
This is something that always bothered me. If you want a job in a sector subject to unions, part of your paycheck goes to the union. Don't want to pay the union? You better find another line of work.
Glad they finally got it fixed in Michigan, the 24th state to pass a right to work law, and only the second state in the last decade. Unions put a measure on the ballot this last election that would have enshrined unions in the state constition, which not only failed miserably, but seemed to precipitate anti union forces pushing for right to work. This last election also gave a republican majority in the house and senate, and in a very quick move they passed the bill in both in one day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/u...michigan-union-limits-plan.html?smid=pl-share
Lots of other reporting on this, since Michigan is often viewed as a union stronghold.
https://www.google.com/search?q=michigan+right+to+work
Glad they finally got it fixed in Michigan, the 24th state to pass a right to work law, and only the second state in the last decade. Unions put a measure on the ballot this last election that would have enshrined unions in the state constition, which not only failed miserably, but seemed to precipitate anti union forces pushing for right to work. This last election also gave a republican majority in the house and senate, and in a very quick move they passed the bill in both in one day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/u...michigan-union-limits-plan.html?smid=pl-share
Lots of other reporting on this, since Michigan is often viewed as a union stronghold.
https://www.google.com/search?q=michigan+right+to+work
#2
Tress
Tress
Union membership shouldn't be required. Ever. And if the need for a union is so small that it can't survive on voluntary membership, then good riddance.
#3
GasBandit
GasBandit
Huh. Didn't expect anti-union sentiment from you, Tress, but I agree with you.
#4
blotsfan
Sounds like economics to me.
I don't get the issues with this (other than from union bosses). This isn't Wisconsin where they're becoming illegal. They're just making it so you can't force people to join a union.
blotsfan
So...more people would have jobs? Or the companies would be paying workers would be paying them at a rate closer to market value, or else they'd find jobs elsewhere?Mr. Obama said:You know, these so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have to do with economics...What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.
Sounds like economics to me.
I don't get the issues with this (other than from union bosses). This isn't Wisconsin where they're becoming illegal. They're just making it so you can't force people to join a union.
#5
Tress
All I need is the government to ensure that people have the right to form a union if they choose. As long as that's the case, I'm happy. Forcing people to join is stupid and wrong.
Tress
This is why I switched from being a Democrat to independent years ago. I may agree with the platform on many issues, but there are other times when I strongly disagree. This is one of them.Huh. Didn't expect anti-union sentiment from you, Tress, but I agree with you.
All I need is the government to ensure that people have the right to form a union if they choose. As long as that's the case, I'm happy. Forcing people to join is stupid and wrong.
#6
Krisken
Krisken
My only problem with it is this part here-
They have to remove the requirement of unions to represent/benefit the people who don't pay dues. Want the benefits? Chip in. Until then this is nothing but a huge win for business at the expense of the workers in Michigan.
1) Right-to-work laws tend to weaken labor unions. This is one thing the left and right agree on. If unions are barred from requiring employees to pay the cost of representation, there’s a free-rider problem. Why bother sending money to my union if I’ll benefit from its bargaining efforts regardless? Pretty soon, unions are drained of funds and can’t launch as many organizing drives or wield influence.
They have to remove the requirement of unions to represent/benefit the people who don't pay dues. Want the benefits? Chip in. Until then this is nothing but a huge win for business at the expense of the workers in Michigan.
#7
Tress
Tress
I agree with that part too. But to me, it's not worth forcing people to pay dues or join a union. It should be as you said: if you want the union, you choose to pay your part.My only problem with it is this part here-
They have to remove the requirement of unions to represent/benefit the people who don't pay dues. Want the benefits? Chip in.
#8
Krisken
Krisken
I guess it comes down to whether you want to break the unions or fix them. I think right-to-work is meant to break them, not fix them.
#9
strawman
strawman
Unions must be competitive and present clear value to their members.
By forcing people to join the union regardless, the unions can be essentially lazy. They don't have to prove value to the workers, and you can't choose to vote with your pocket book.
Keep in mind that the unions do NOT protect individual workers. If you are fired due to a reason the union says is invalid, you will rarely get union representation and support. They really only work to improve conditions generally, and will not fight for individual workers unless they can turn it into a media event. I've seen far too many people who lost their jobs, expected the unions to stick up for them, and were devastated to find out that the tens of thousands of dollars they contributed to the union over decades didn't give them individual security.
The whole "unions will break" thing is silly anyway. A lot of states have right to work, and they still have unions and collective bargaining, and employees still choose to join the unions - but the unions have to work harder to convince people that they are worth the money they're paying.
Unions also work hard to make sure that the wrong type of employees don't get union jobs. I can't get into details, but there are job openings that could be filled with available, capable applicants right now that the company cannot hire because the union has set rules in place that forces the employer to turn people away.
Unions have a lot of good and pretty things, but when you look at the underbelly you find the top only looks pretty because they do a lot of nasty work below the surface.
By forcing people to join the union regardless, the unions can be essentially lazy. They don't have to prove value to the workers, and you can't choose to vote with your pocket book.
Keep in mind that the unions do NOT protect individual workers. If you are fired due to a reason the union says is invalid, you will rarely get union representation and support. They really only work to improve conditions generally, and will not fight for individual workers unless they can turn it into a media event. I've seen far too many people who lost their jobs, expected the unions to stick up for them, and were devastated to find out that the tens of thousands of dollars they contributed to the union over decades didn't give them individual security.
The whole "unions will break" thing is silly anyway. A lot of states have right to work, and they still have unions and collective bargaining, and employees still choose to join the unions - but the unions have to work harder to convince people that they are worth the money they're paying.
Unions also work hard to make sure that the wrong type of employees don't get union jobs. I can't get into details, but there are job openings that could be filled with available, capable applicants right now that the company cannot hire because the union has set rules in place that forces the employer to turn people away.
Unions have a lot of good and pretty things, but when you look at the underbelly you find the top only looks pretty because they do a lot of nasty work below the surface.
#10
blotsfan
blotsfan
Well, if the unions are completley broken and it gets to the point that the workers don't have good enough pay/conditions, they can unionize again.
#11
strawman
strawman
If it becomes a problem primarily due to right to work, then they simply need elect a legislature that will reverse the law. I wouldn't be surprised if the unions don't get democrats back into power in the next decade and do just that anyway.Well, if the unions are completley broken and it gets to the point that the workers don't have good enough pay/conditions, they can unionize again.
#12
Krisken
Krisken
Yeah, that will be fun. I can't wait for a return to conditions of the early 1900's to force that. Guys, I'm saying it's better to fix something instead of break it and try again. I'm not saying Unions don't need a serious fixing and have lost their way. I just don't agree that right-to-work is the answer BEFORE negating free riders. It's a question of the order of things to be done, not what must be done.
#13
strawman
strawman
Perhaps you could describe the 1900's conditions that exist in other right to work states so we can better grasp the magnitude of the problem we are unleashing.
#14
Krisken
Krisken
What you want a dissertation on what it was like before unions? Or perhaps the mixed results of right to work legislation and how it does bring more work but wages and benefits decrease for the average worker while increasing pay for those in charge? You don't need me to find that information for you.Perhaps you could describe the 1900's conditions that exist in other right to work states so we can better grasp the magnitude of the problem we are unleashing.
#15
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
I believe he's suggesting these scenarios do not currently exist in right-to-work states and therefore your analogy is fallacious, so he'd like examples of current regression to the situation of the 1900s. But I might be mistaken.What you want a dissertation on what it was like before unions? Or perhaps the mixed results of right to work legislation and how it does bring more work but wages and benefits decrease for the average worker while increasing pay for those in charge? You don't need me to find that information for you.
#16
blotsfan
blotsfan
So basically, the rich are paying more money to help stop unemployment. Isn't that what the government is trying to have happen?What you want a dissertation on what it was like before unions? Or perhaps the mixed results of right to work legislation and how it does bring more work but wages and benefits decrease for the average worker while increasing pay for those in charge? You don't need me to find that information for you.
#17
Krisken
Krisken
I made the mistake of combining two thoughts in one paragraph. It is a notch trying to get a decent thought out on the kindle. One set of examples was in the article I linked, so saying "give me examples" does not give me faith anyone will even bother to follow it anyways.I believe he's suggesting these scenarios do not currently exist in right-to-work states and therefore your analogy is fallacious, so he'd like examples of current regression to the situation of the 1900s. But I might be mistaken.
#18
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
I'm 90% sure this word is not supposed to be 'notch' and 100% amused by that thought.(snip) It is a notch trying (snip)
#19
Terrik
Terrik
Current list of right-to-work states:
#20
Krisken
Krisken
No, the rich don't care about unemployment any more than anyone else. Lower wages mean greater profits for the short term. Long term profit went out the window long ago, along with long term employment.[DOUBLEPOST=1355280104][/DOUBLEPOST]So basically, the rich are paying more money to help stop unemployment. Isn't that what the government is trying to have happen?
Yeah, it doesn't let me swear. I'll figure out how on this thing eventually.I'm 90% sure this word is not supposed to be 'notch' and 100% amused by that thought.
#21
strawman
Slippery slope is a fun toy, but in this case there is data. The data shows that there are the following differences between RTW states and non-RTW states:
Neither of these could prove that RTW is the moving factor in this economic growth, but they do seem to agree that in general employment goes up in RTW states, even as average paycheck for typically unionized jobs goes down 3% (of which 1/2 would be going to the union anyway, so the real impact is only 1.5% to the employee)
So right now I remain unconvinced that your statements hold water, which is why I'm asking for additional data. The data I see does not show the devastating consequences you are suggesting. Keep in mind that this only affects the paychecks of blue collar jobs. When a car company moves in, only half the work force is blue collar - the white collar workers are paid as well in RTW states as non RTW states. This means that the overall economic impact might be positive, which has benefits all around.
strawman
huge win for business at the expense of the workers in Michigan.
right-to-work is meant to break [the unions].
All I'm saying is that you seem to be going off the deep end with slippery slope, and you are not backing your statements up with any data. Since nearly half the states in the US have this law, it should be easy for you to show that this law will break the unions, and return working conditions to that of the 1900s, rather than simply opining that it will.I can't wait for a return to conditions of the early 1900's
Slippery slope is a fun toy, but in this case there is data. The data shows that there are the following differences between RTW states and non-RTW states:
I don't see broken unions, child labor, and 90 hour work weeks on that list. However that 3% lower cost of business increases business activity in the state (something michigan sorely needs):
- Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
- The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
- The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.
(all the above from wikipedia, consume with salt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law )Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes, now at University of Minnesota, compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.
...
A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas gained 1,615,000 new jobs. The opinion piece proposed several possible reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.
Neither of these could prove that RTW is the moving factor in this economic growth, but they do seem to agree that in general employment goes up in RTW states, even as average paycheck for typically unionized jobs goes down 3% (of which 1/2 would be going to the union anyway, so the real impact is only 1.5% to the employee)
So right now I remain unconvinced that your statements hold water, which is why I'm asking for additional data. The data I see does not show the devastating consequences you are suggesting. Keep in mind that this only affects the paychecks of blue collar jobs. When a car company moves in, only half the work force is blue collar - the white collar workers are paid as well in RTW states as non RTW states. This means that the overall economic impact might be positive, which has benefits all around.
#22
strawman
strawman
Honestly the only thing that bothers me about right to work is that it limits the ability a business has to make a contract with a union. This is an infringement of freedom on the business. This issue is tempered by the fact that such an agreement looks an awful lot like a monopoly and/or collusion, which I believe are bad for capitalism.
It's interesting reading about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act and finding out just how far bad unions went at that time.
It's interesting reading about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act and finding out just how far bad unions went at that time.
#23
Krisken
Krisken
Right, when you use an average across all jobs like a loss of 3.2% and then say the reduction is only for blue collar jobs, I have trouble taking that 3.2 seriously. That is a bigger difference than your data suggests.
Let's just pretend I'm just screaming bloody murder, though, and am saying this will be the death of the middle class, instead of the measured responses I actually put forth.
Let's just pretend I'm just screaming bloody murder, though, and am saying this will be the death of the middle class, instead of the measured responses I actually put forth.
#24
GasBandit
GasBandit
I always find it remarkable how the horrifying argument against busting unions is the same horrifying argument against socialism in general - IE, why put in if you get the benefits regardless.My only problem with it is this part here-
1) Right-to-work laws tend to weaken labor unions. This is one thing the left and right agree on. If unions are barred from requiring employees to pay the cost of representation, there’s a free-rider problem. Why bother sending money to my union if I’ll benefit from its bargaining efforts regardless? Pretty soon, unions are drained of funds and can’t launch as many organizing drives or wield influence.
They have to remove the requirement of unions to represent/benefit the people who don't pay dues. Want the benefits? Chip in. Until then this is nothing but a huge win for business at the expense of the workers in Michigan.
#25
PatrThom
PatrThom
Much like Tress and Krisken allude earlier, I believe that instead of rectifying our labor problems, all this legislation will really do is teach the Unions that they could really have cemented their position as "fighting for the common man," and "on the side of righteousness," and all that...if they had decided to buckle down, clean up, and really show us how they were capable of ensuring the success and prosperity of the Union worker as opposed to the non-Union worker (i.e., demonstrate to the workers how their Union dues actually work for them), but instead they decided to spend their money and influence backing pro-Union candidates and playing Politics, so now it's too late for that.
BTW, long-term, that's what I see as what was the real target of this legislation...it was sold to voters as pro-worker/pro-business/pro-economy (and it may indeed have those effects), but ultimately I see it as having been crafted more as a way to curtail Union revenue so as to choke off the ability of Labor to spend money to back their chosen candidate(s). At least, that's how I assume the bill was sold to other (primarily Republican) legislators, no doubt with the implication that once the law is on the books, the reduced Labor funding would mean upcoming MI elections would be "...more likely to go our way, ifyouknowwhatImeanwinknudge."
--Patrick
BTW, long-term, that's what I see as what was the real target of this legislation...it was sold to voters as pro-worker/pro-business/pro-economy (and it may indeed have those effects), but ultimately I see it as having been crafted more as a way to curtail Union revenue so as to choke off the ability of Labor to spend money to back their chosen candidate(s). At least, that's how I assume the bill was sold to other (primarily Republican) legislators, no doubt with the implication that once the law is on the books, the reduced Labor funding would mean upcoming MI elections would be "...more likely to go our way, ifyouknowwhatImeanwinknudge."
--Patrick
#26
strawman
strawman
Interesting point - could be a way to turn michigan back into a swing state as well. The unions spend an unbelievable amount of money campaigning during election season for democrats.
#27
Eriol
Eriol
There's a heck of a lot wrong with the Canadian system of governance and campaigning, but the one thing they got right was that only individuals can contribute to political parties, and subject to a harsh limit (I think it's $1,000 per person per year). Unions, corporations, etc, all can't contribute. This is a big benefit over your system IMO.
#28
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
So…it's still one person/one vote, but if you want to vote early in the "premium" election, it's $1000 extra?There's a heck of a lot wrong with the Canadian system of governance and campaigning, but the one thing they got right was that only individuals can contribute to political parties, and subject to a harsh limit (I think it's $1,000 per person per year). Unions, corporations, etc, all can't contribute. This is a big benefit over your system IMO.
--Patrick
#29
strawman
strawman
Darn all our freedom of speech! If only we didn't have that pesky bill of rights that allows us to determine how to spend our money...This is a big benefit over your system IMO.
#30
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Here's a helpful link about the history of "Right to work" http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/right-to-work
#31
GasBandit
GasBandit
FTFYHere's a leftist diatribe blog full of invective, rage and revisionist history that refuses to brook any challenge to unions even as they strangle American commerce and pollute American politics.
#32
Krisken
Krisken
It's like watching Sean Hannity and Lawrence Odonnell get in a fight about legitimate reporting.
#33
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I never called it legitimate reporting, I just like reading left-version of Fox News sometimes. That gets nowhere near as much play as the right wing media machine.
#34
GasBandit
"If legislation, jurisdiction, and the tolerance of executive agencies had not created privileges for the unions, the need for special legislation concerning them would probably not have arisen in common-law countries. But, once special privileges have become part of the law of the land, they can be removed only by special legislation. Though there ought to be no need for special 'right-to-work laws,' it is difficult to deny that the situation created in the United States by legislation and by the decisions of the Supreme Court may make special legislation the only practicable way of restoring the principles of freedom."
TLDR version - in a perfect world we wouldn't need right to work laws, but the way unions have become so lawfully entrenched means it's pretty much the only way to fix the mess.
GasBandit
Well, so long as you're up front about what it is. Me, I'll quote Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek:I never called it legitimate reporting, I just like reading left-version of Fox News sometimes. That gets nowhere near as much play as the right wing media machine.
"If legislation, jurisdiction, and the tolerance of executive agencies had not created privileges for the unions, the need for special legislation concerning them would probably not have arisen in common-law countries. But, once special privileges have become part of the law of the land, they can be removed only by special legislation. Though there ought to be no need for special 'right-to-work laws,' it is difficult to deny that the situation created in the United States by legislation and by the decisions of the Supreme Court may make special legislation the only practicable way of restoring the principles of freedom."
TLDR version - in a perfect world we wouldn't need right to work laws, but the way unions have become so lawfully entrenched means it's pretty much the only way to fix the mess.
#35
Krisken
Krisken
And you'll get the opposite reaction from Paul Krugman, also a Nobel Prize winning economist.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
My point being, there is no consensus on what is best for the economy, even among experts.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
My point being, there is no consensus on what is best for the economy, even among experts.
#36
strawman
strawman
I actually think it will be more interesting when this happens in California.
Can you imagine a Hollywood where actors and writers can't be blacklisted and never work in the industry again? Where a strike by one group doesn't stop the entire industry for months, causing millions to lose their paychecks because one union feels they aren't getting a big enough cut from blockbusters? Where a movie could be produce by non union amateurs and still be distributed without being blocked by the unions without huge fees and forcing the amateurs to join the unions and pay back dues?
Michigan may be the union poster child, but they are far more heavily invested elsewhere, and have significantly more power over more workers elsewhere.
Can you imagine a Hollywood where actors and writers can't be blacklisted and never work in the industry again? Where a strike by one group doesn't stop the entire industry for months, causing millions to lose their paychecks because one union feels they aren't getting a big enough cut from blockbusters? Where a movie could be produce by non union amateurs and still be distributed without being blocked by the unions without huge fees and forcing the amateurs to join the unions and pay back dues?
Michigan may be the union poster child, but they are far more heavily invested elsewhere, and have significantly more power over more workers elsewhere.
#37
Krisken
Krisken
What should be pointed out is these laws are specifically designed to exclude firefighters and policemen, groups that overwhelmingly lean Republican.
#38
strawman
strawman
Those unions are already severely limited by not being able to strike.
#39
Krisken
Krisken
Wait, is eliminating the ability to go on strike a valid reason for enacting right-to-work laws?Those unions are already severely limited by not being able to strike.
#40
GasBandit
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts."
Quoting a nobel-prize-winning economist on things that are economic matters is not appeal to authority. If I had quoted a politician, it would have been.
As for Krugman, you can quote him too, without being fallacious. Unfortunately, you cannot do it without being wrong.
GasBandit
Quote from your link:And you'll get the opposite reaction from Paul Krugman, also a Nobel Prize winning economist.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
My point being, there is no consensus on what is best for the economy, even among experts.
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts."
Quoting a nobel-prize-winning economist on things that are economic matters is not appeal to authority. If I had quoted a politician, it would have been.
As for Krugman, you can quote him too, without being fallacious. Unfortunately, you cannot do it without being wrong.
#41
Krisken
Krisken
Awww, isn't that cute, you think the people who agree with you are right.Quote from your link:
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts."
Quoting a nobel-prize-winning economist on things that are economic matters is not appeal to authority. If I had quoted a politician, it would have been.
As for Krugman, you can quote him too, without being fallacious. Unfortunately, you cannot do it without being wrong.
#42
GasBandit
GasBandit
... and you don't think people who agree with you are right? Do you consider yourself to be fundamentally wrong? Or do you have an astounding level of cognitive dissonance that allows you to assert that you are right while people who agree with you are wrong?Awww, isn't that cute, you think the people who agree with you are right.
#43
tegid
If it's about limiting the power of reportedly too powerful unions, it still makes sense to not include the ones that are already impaired.
tegid
I'll admit that I know nothing about the issue, but about 2 minutes ago I felt very proud of myself for deducing that the name of this kind of bills comes from not being forced to strike when you don't want to. If that's that's true, then not including unions who can't strike makes sense.Wait, is eliminating the ability to go on strike a valid reason for enacting right-to-work laws?
If it's about limiting the power of reportedly too powerful unions, it still makes sense to not include the ones that are already impaired.
#44
Krisken
I might not be right, and when I find I'm not I try my best to understand the new position. You keep on acting like we're the same, though.
Krisken
No, I form my own opinion based on what is presented to me, not search out people who agree with me and present it as FACT and everyone else is wrong.... and you don't think people who agree with you are right? Do you consider yourself to be fundamentally wrong? Or do you have an astounding level of cognitive dissonance that allows you to assert that you are right while people who agree with you are wrong?
I might not be right, and when I find I'm not I try my best to understand the new position. You keep on acting like we're the same, though.
#45
Tress
Tress
I have one simple question: does anyone think that it's okay for union membership to be required for certain jobs in entire industries, to the point where membership is mandatory and dues are involuntarily taken out of a person's paycheck (even if that person doesn't support the union)?
#46
GasBandit
GasBandit
Oh, we're definitely not the same. I'm right, and you're wrong. That's very differentNo, I form my own opinion based on what is presented to me, not search out people who agree with me and present it as FACT and everyone else is wrong.
I might not be right, and when I find I'm not I try my best to understand the new position. You keep on acting like we're the same, though.
#47
Krisken
Krisken
Here I thought it was called right-to-work because it allowed jobs to not exclude people based on not being part of a union. You could very well be right in that's where the name comes from.[DOUBLEPOST=1355355946][/DOUBLEPOST]I'll admit that I know nothing about the issue, but about 2 minutes ago I felt very proud of myself for deducing that the name of this kind of bills comes from not being forced to strike when you don't want to. If that's that's true, then not including unions who can't strike makes sense.
If it's about limiting the power of reportedly too powerful unions, it still makes sense to not include the ones that are already impaired.
Yeah, ok. You can just keep talking to Charlie if infantile discussion is what you prefer.Oh, we're definitely not the same. I'm right, and you're wrong. That's very different
#48
GasBandit
GasBandit
I just do that with you, because every time an argument with you really starts getting good you go "whatever bye." So I don't invest the effort any more.Yeah, ok. You can just keep talking to Charlie if infantile discussion is what you prefer.
#49
Krisken
Krisken
You mean 'getting circular', don't you? I don't like having to constantly repeat myself because you constantly draw assumptions from statements I make. THAT'S when I say "Wow, this is pointless".I just do that with you, because every time an argument with you really starts getting good you go "whatever bye." So I don't invest the effort any more.
#50
tegid
tegid
I agree with mandatory membership to unions in some cases, but you should always be able to choose different unions... Can't there be more than one union representing workers in the same company or industry over there?I have one simple question: does anyone think that it's okay for union membership to be required for certain jobs in entire industries, to the point where membership is mandatory and dues are involuntarily taken out of a person's paycheck (even if that person doesn't support the union)?
#51
Krisken
Krisken
That would be a fantastic idea. Maybe what unions really need is competition.I agree with mandatory membership to unions in some cases, but you should always be able to choose different unions... Can't there be more than one union representing workers in the same company or industry over there?
#52
Tress
Tress
To answer your question tegid, no. Each industry has one union that workers join with no other options.
#53
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
are you being sarcasticThat would be a fantastic idea. Maybe what unions really need is competition.
#54
tegid
tegid
Yeah we got that shit worked out over here*, it's what happens when you're not scared of being a bit of a socialist! 
*No we don't
*No we don't
#55
Krisken
Krisken
No. You want to enter the discussion and explain why you think I am?are you being sarcastic
#56
GasBandit
GasBandit
Competition is good for any endeavor. I have a feeling that if there was true competition between unions, they wouldn't have become so toxic.
Of course, some people will tell you that competition is the complete antithesis to collectivism... as in, collective bargaining.
Of course, some people will tell you that competition is the complete antithesis to collectivism... as in, collective bargaining.
#57
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Union is...everyone together against the employers. I. Um. IT's the word.No. You want to enter the discussion and explain why you think I am?
#58
tegid
tegid
Seriously, it blows my mind that you are not able to choose which union represents you. Here it works that way, and to go on strike and things like that a majority of the workers (or the unions that represent them, with a decision power that comes from some union elections thingy but could as well be by number of affiliates) have to agree on it.
#59
Krisken
Krisken
See tegid's post above this one. It's silly that you think a union should be 'everyone'.Union is...everyone together against the employers. I. Um. IT's the word.
#60
GasBandit
GasBandit
And you are incapable of imagining multiple unions?Union is...everyone together against the employers. I. Um. IT's the word.
#61
strawman
strawman
Right to work does NOT mean you can choose not to strike.
If you are part of the union, and you choose not to strike when they tell you to, you are in violation of your agreement with the union, and in some cases you may be blacklisted in non right to work states, where you can no longer do the job you were trained to do.
Right to work means that if you are a pipe fitter, you can work at a pipe fitting job and not join the union. That's all.
Without right to work, you CANNOT perform the job you were trained for if you do not also join the union. And if you do get black listed (which I suspect is technically illegal, but unenforceable due to loopholes) then you have to move to a right to work state, or learn a new job. If you violate a strike order in California, since the unions are the same, moving to another union state isn't going to help you.
Alternately, you work under the radar, but if your customers get caught hiring non union labor, the unions will blacklist your customers, and they will have all sorts of problems getting certain things done.
Unions are a legalized form of extortion. They perform a valuable function in our society, and we shouldn't eliminate them, but just like the financial industry there should be limits, and most of all we shouldn't be forcing people to join an organization and pay dues for it if they don't want to. It shouldn't be tied to their job or employer.
If you are part of the union, and you choose not to strike when they tell you to, you are in violation of your agreement with the union, and in some cases you may be blacklisted in non right to work states, where you can no longer do the job you were trained to do.
Right to work means that if you are a pipe fitter, you can work at a pipe fitting job and not join the union. That's all.
Without right to work, you CANNOT perform the job you were trained for if you do not also join the union. And if you do get black listed (which I suspect is technically illegal, but unenforceable due to loopholes) then you have to move to a right to work state, or learn a new job. If you violate a strike order in California, since the unions are the same, moving to another union state isn't going to help you.
Alternately, you work under the radar, but if your customers get caught hiring non union labor, the unions will blacklist your customers, and they will have all sorts of problems getting certain things done.
Unions are a legalized form of extortion. They perform a valuable function in our society, and we shouldn't eliminate them, but just like the financial industry there should be limits, and most of all we shouldn't be forcing people to join an organization and pay dues for it if they don't want to. It shouldn't be tied to their job or employer.
#62
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
That's Entertainment!Can you imagine a Hollywood where actors and writers can't be blacklisted and never work in the industry again? Where a strike by one group doesn't stop the entire industry for months, causing millions to lose their paychecks because one union feels they aren't getting a big enough cut from blockbusters? Where a movie could be produce by non union amateurs and still be distributed without being blocked by the unions without huge fees and forcing the amateurs to join the unions and pay back dues?
--Patrick
#63
papachronos
papachronos
I didn't know this was the case. Does that mean that NEA membership is mandatory for public school teachers, and American Federation of Teachers membership is optional? Or can you choose one or the other, or both?To answer your question tegid, no. Each industry has one union that workers join with no other options.
#64
Norris
Norris
Where the working class writers and actors wouldn't be guaranteed residuals for future sales of their work, thus making it harder to actually make a career out of the business of show.Can you imagine a Hollywood where actors and writers can't be blacklisted and never work in the industry again? Where a strike by one group doesn't stop the entire industry for months, causing millions to lose their paychecks because one union feels they aren't getting a big enough cut from blockbusters? Where a movie could be produce by non union amateurs and still be distributed without being blocked by the unions without huge fees and forcing the amateurs to join the unions and pay back dues?
#65
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It's more than that. Being part of SAG gets you access to things like cheap insurance and connections to casting agents. Really, SAG and SWG/WGA are some of the most useful and powerful unions, if only because their focus is basically on one city in America, and this means that paying your dues gets you the stuff you need succeed. The guys on the bottom still have a tough time but just getting in makes continued work much easier.Where the working class writers and actors wouldn't be guaranteed residuals for future sales of their work, thus making it harder to actually make a career out of the business of show.
#66
strawman
It's protectionist extortion.
strawman
If there are writers who will do the same work without residuals, why shouldn't we allow studios to use them?Where the working class writers and actors wouldn't be guaranteed residuals for future sales of their work, thus making it harder to actually make a career out of the business of show.
It's protectionist extortion.
#67
tegid
tegid
Can't that argument be done about minimum wages and just about any other worker's rights?
(I don't know what residuals are)
(I don't know what residuals are)
#68
Covar
Covar
A residual is a payment made to the creator of performance art (or the performer in the work) for subsequent showings or screenings of the (usually filmed) work. A typical use is in the payment of residuals for television reruns. The word is often used in the plural form.(I don't know what residuals are)
#69
GasBandit
GasBandit
Minimum wage laws increase unemployment, hurt those you'd think they're supposed to help, encourage businesses to hide illegal immigration, and give people the false impression that they can expect to live off a wage if they do nothing to improve/make themselves desirable as employees.Can't that argument be done about minimum wages and just about any other worker's rights?
(I don't know what residuals are)
#70
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
The biggest problem with minimum wage laws is that without them, you have situations where people are working for nothing. With them, you have people working for a guaranteed minimum payment of $x.xx/hr. Sounds better than working for nothing, right? Unfortunately, the net result is that you have now redefined "nothing" as "$x.xx/hr" which is great for the people who were making nothing, but which is lousy for anyone who was making $x, because their wage has just become "the new nothing."Minimum wage laws...
--Patrick
#71
tegid
Regarding unemployment, any safety regulations and the like can also be said to increase it. Deniying minimum work conditions puts employment on a slippery slope that ends on something akin to slavery (and since we're talking about just removing regulation, not relaxing it, what's going to stop if from sliding all the way down?). Re: illegal immigration, exactly the same argument can be made PLUS the fact that people do something illegal is not, by itself, an argument to legalize it.
tegid
I don't see how that's true: if people don't make themselves desirable as employees, they won't have a job and won't live off of any wage at all.give people the false impression that they can expect to live off a wage if they do nothing to improve/make themselves desirable as employees.
Regarding unemployment, any safety regulations and the like can also be said to increase it. Deniying minimum work conditions puts employment on a slippery slope that ends on something akin to slavery (and since we're talking about just removing regulation, not relaxing it, what's going to stop if from sliding all the way down?). Re: illegal immigration, exactly the same argument can be made PLUS the fact that people do something illegal is not, by itself, an argument to legalize it.
#72
AshburnerX
It's also done because any time a show or movie is being rerun, your essentially stealing employment opportunities for writers... or at least that was the case back in the 1940's-50's, when you basically only had ABC, NBC and CBS putting out new TV shows. This also covers things like transferring the material to a new medium (VHS, DVD, though I don't think Digital Content is covered yet, even after the recent strike) or to new markets.
It should be noted that basically the only people who get residuals are people who are with ether SWA or WGA.
AshburnerX
Because they've tried this more than once and the end result is that writers who have to churn out scripts for next to nothing tend to turn out shitty scripts. It's killed more than one show. If people in a creative profession don't have the security and time to work through the creative process then they simply do no turn out quality work. It devalues the art form.If there are writers who will do the same work without residuals, why shouldn't we allow studios to use them?
It's also done because any time a show or movie is being rerun, your essentially stealing employment opportunities for writers... or at least that was the case back in the 1940's-50's, when you basically only had ABC, NBC and CBS putting out new TV shows. This also covers things like transferring the material to a new medium (VHS, DVD, though I don't think Digital Content is covered yet, even after the recent strike) or to new markets.
It should be noted that basically the only people who get residuals are people who are with ether SWA or WGA.
#73
GasBandit
GasBandit
Despite "minimum wage" laws, people still work for nothing. We've employed them where I work, in fact - interns.The biggest problem with minimum wage laws is that without them, you have situations where people are working for nothing. With them, you have people working for a guaranteed minimum payment of $x.xx/hr. Sounds better than working for nothing, right? Unfortunately, the net result is that you have now redefined "nothing" as "$x.xx/hr" which is great for the people who were making nothing, but which is lousy for anyone who was making $x, because their wage has just become "the new nothing."
--Patrick
#74
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
We, as a culture, have basically decided that college/high school students need to do at least a few months of "free" service in their chosen industry to basically make sure they are actually cut out for it. It's incredibly unfair and probably necessary... but in the end, an intern really is no replacement for someone who actually needs that paycheck. An intern will just walk out if you mistreat them in the slightest.Despite "minimum wage" laws, people still work for nothing. We've employed them where I work, in fact - interns.
#75
Covar
Covar
Out of curiosity when was the last time you worked a minimum wage job? Those jobs are filled with people not giving a shit, just doing enough to not get fired.I don't see how that's true: if people don't make themselves desirable as employees, they won't have a job and won't live off of any wage at all.
#76
strawman
Well, I don't buy it. College campuses are filled with art from professional artists, not free art from students, because they know the value. There's no union forcing college campuses to hire only union artists to make sure that all campus art is "good".
strawman
So you are saying that the only thing standing between the awesome (hahaha) shows we are getting now, and entertainment ghetto, is the union forcing a higher minimum wage?Because they've tried this more than once and the end result is that writers who have to churn out scripts for next to nothing tend to turn out shitty scripts. It's killed more than one show. If people in a creative profession don't have the security and time to work through the creative process then they simply do no turn out quality work. It devalues the art form.
Well, I don't buy it. College campuses are filled with art from professional artists, not free art from students, because they know the value. There's no union forcing college campuses to hire only union artists to make sure that all campus art is "good".
#77
AshburnerX
The only reason this is an issue for TV and film is because a script for these productions is worthless outside of the complete production itself. It's tied to the limitations of the form of presentation to it's audience. You'd need to completely re-write a movie to turn it into a stage musical and you likely need a different type of writer to do it, so any resulting production wouldn't have used THAT script as anything more than a basis for a rough draft.
AshburnerX
Whatever your opinion on the actual content of the shows on TV right now, we really only need to point to the 2007-2008 Writers Strike to showcase just how far the quality can drop. Basically everything on TV was worse for an entire season and many shows didn't survive due to lagging ratings.So you are saying that the only thing standing between the awesome (hahaha) shows we are getting now, and entertainment ghetto, is the union forcing a higher minimum wage?
That's a false equivalency. Solo artists who produce a physical work still retain ownership of that work in every regard except for the actual piece they sold. An artist who designs and constructs an outdoor modern art piece for a college may not own that sculpture itself, but he sure as fuck owns the rights to reproduce it and sell it until he sells those rights to someone else. In the case of a commission piece, said rights are usual part of the commission contract.College campuses are filled with art from professional artists, not free art from students, because they know the value. There's no union forcing college campuses to hire only union artists to make sure that all campus art is "good".
The only reason this is an issue for TV and film is because a script for these productions is worthless outside of the complete production itself. It's tied to the limitations of the form of presentation to it's audience. You'd need to completely re-write a movie to turn it into a stage musical and you likely need a different type of writer to do it, so any resulting production wouldn't have used THAT script as anything more than a basis for a rough draft.
#78
Covar
Covar
Out of the talk shows which shows with writers brought in scabs? I don't recall scripted televsion doing so. I do remember shows being cancelled because of shortened seasons which didn't allow for struggling shows to grow ratings.
#79
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Heroes?Out of the talk shows which shows with writers brought in scabs? I don't recall scripted televsion doing so. I do remember shows being cancelled because of shortened seasons which didn't allow for struggling shows to grow ratings.
#80
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I don't think Conan brought in anything... Jay Leno did (of course).Out of the talk shows which shows with writers brought in scabs? I don't recall scripted televsion doing so. I do remember shows being cancelled because of shortened seasons which didn't allow for struggling shows to grow ratings.
Yeah, that second season of Heroes basically killed it. It lingered for 3 more seasons but the ratings weren't even half of what they were before.Heroes?
#81
PatrThom
I was referring more to people who work for no compensation at all.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Ah, but interns aren't working for nothing. They are being paid in practical experience, which they value highly enough that they have agreed to work for no money.Despite "minimum wage" laws, people still work for nothing. We've employed them where I work, in fact - interns.
I was referring more to people who work for no compensation at all.
--Patrick
#82
GasBandit
GasBandit
Is there really a difference? The second group is gaining experience, too. Maybe they don't value that experience as much as the first group does, but I would still assert that it's because the first group sees it as a stepping stone to a higher position, whereas the second group wants an escalator.Ah, but interns aren't working for nothing. They are being paid in practical experience, which they value highly enough that they have agreed to work for no money.
I was referring more to people who work for no compensation at all.
--Patrick
#83
PatrThom
PatrThom
No argument there. I'm sure you've had some interns where you could tell they were raring to go, itching to climb a lot of stairs, and others who just sat there hitting the "door close" button over and over again, waiting for it to rise.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#84
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I honestly wish we could see a resurgence of the apprenticeship system. If you put years into a kid, you damn well knew if he could handle the work or you told him to beat it. But no one wants to eat the cost training anyone anymore and that's what's lead to the glut of college graduates with meaningless degrees.
#85
Krisken
Krisken
And no one willing to hire them without experience.I honestly wish we could see a resurgence of the apprenticeship system. If you put years into a kid, you damn well knew if he could handle the work or you told him to beat it. But no one wants to eat the cost training anyone anymore and that's what's lead to the glut of college graduates with meaningless degrees.
#86
GasBandit
Thing is, when everyone goes to college, is it so special any more? And they come out expecting a job to just be waiting there for them to fill. They think, "ok, now the hard work is over, I put in my time, where's my 60k+ starting salary with benefits that I was guaranteed by virtue of a 4 year degree?"
GasBandit
It's something I've wondered about... for the last 50 years, every parent has said to their kid, you gotta go to college. You gotta go to college. If you don't want to be a janitor and plunge toilets all day, you gotta go to college.I honestly wish we could see a resurgence of the apprenticeship system. If you put years into a kid, you damn well knew if he could handle the work or you told him to beat it. But no one wants to eat the cost training anyone anymore and that's what's lead to the glut of college graduates with meaningless degrees.
Thing is, when everyone goes to college, is it so special any more? And they come out expecting a job to just be waiting there for them to fill. They think, "ok, now the hard work is over, I put in my time, where's my 60k+ starting salary with benefits that I was guaranteed by virtue of a 4 year degree?"
#87
Krisken
Krisken
Or they're thinking "Holy shit, why did I put myself into debt for $100k for a job that pays $20k a year?"
#88
GasBandit
GasBandit
That they are. And then they think what I said. And then they think what you said again. And then they think what I said again. And then they get credit cards. And then, mark my words, they will vote for the next candidate who puts student loan forgiveness on his platform.Or they're thinking "Holy shit, why did I put myself into debt for $100k for a job that pays $20k a year?"
#89
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
You were an apprentice blacksmith or cobbler or whatever for four years, you damn well knew enough to do that job for the rest of your life (though you probably weren't a master ether). It's still the same in some regards: you have 4 years work experience in a line of work and your always going to be able to find work doing that. It's just basically become impossible to GET those years of experience.It's something I've wondered about... for the last 50 years, every parent has said to their kid, you gotta go to college. You gotta go to college. If you don't want to be a janitor and plunge toilets all day, you gotta go to college.
Thing is, when everyone goes to college, is it so special any more? And they come out expecting a job to just be waiting there for them to fill. They think, "ok, now the hard work is over, I put in my time, where's my 60k+ starting salary with benefits that I was guaranteed by virtue of a 4 year degree?"
#90
Bowielee
Bowielee
People who believe a 4 year degree will net them a 60K starting salary job didn't do their research. It's sad, because I'm going to school with a lot of them. I went into my psychology degree knowing full well that I would need at minimum a masters degree to net a decent job.
There was a NYT article not to long ago that cited Industrial/Organizational psychology as one of the least employable jobs with the lowest salaries in the country. Which is true if you only get an undergrad degree. If you get a Master's, however, the job market is extremely good and extremely lucrative. In fact every degree listed in that NYT article is a career that requires at least a masters to succeed in.
There was a NYT article not to long ago that cited Industrial/Organizational psychology as one of the least employable jobs with the lowest salaries in the country. Which is true if you only get an undergrad degree. If you get a Master's, however, the job market is extremely good and extremely lucrative. In fact every degree listed in that NYT article is a career that requires at least a masters to succeed in.
#91
tegid
Anyway, so what? That just shows the standard effort required for that paying grade. Maybe it should be higher, but I don't understand the idea of 'these people don't give a shit, they should be payed half of what they are making now, tops'. If that effort's not good enough, they shouldn't be working there and that's it.
tegid
It's been a few years, and I was the only employee in that position. But I've seen that happen in non minimum wage jobs too.Out of curiosity when was the last time you worked a minimum wage job? Those jobs are filled with people not giving a shit, just doing enough to not get fired.
Anyway, so what? That just shows the standard effort required for that paying grade. Maybe it should be higher, but I don't understand the idea of 'these people don't give a shit, they should be payed half of what they are making now, tops'. If that effort's not good enough, they shouldn't be working there and that's it.
#92
PatrThom
PatrThom
So basically, what we're all saying here is that in order to succeed in your career of choice, you need to work harder at it than any of your peers AND you need to stay committed, keeping the hammer down and driving hard even after everyone else has pulled up/dropped out.
Huh. It's like commitment inflation.
--Patrick
Huh. It's like commitment inflation.
--Patrick
#93
Bowielee
Bowielee
This is the nature of our culture. Always has been.So basically, what we're all saying here is that in order to succeed in your career of choice, you need to work harder at it than any of your peers AND you need to stay committed, keeping the hammer down and driving hard even after everyone else has pulled up/dropped out.
Huh. It's like commitment inflation.
--Patrick
#94
Adam
The job of the union is to represent the employees to the employer. It's not meant to be an US against THEM philosophy and unions have been making great strides to make their membership understand that. The union isn't meant to support individuals, it's meant to even the playing field between the collective rights of the employed and the needs and desires of the business. If you are fighting against the employer, the union does not want you because it represents a lot of money, time and work to 'make things work'. I'm not surprised you would think it's an antagonistic relationship because frankly, to you and your simplistic world view everything will always be "Good guy versus bad guy" but the best relationships in the world can be between a union that understands the role it has to play, and a company that understands the role the union plays.
One of the most successful union people I know personally, the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, practiced what he called 'intelligent militancy'. You didn't fight for the sake of fighting.
Adam
That's a fundamental misrepresentation of what a Union is supposed to do - and every union person worth their salt from the bottom of the rung all the way to the top executive would argue you on that point.Union is...everyone together against the employers. I. Um. IT's the word.
The job of the union is to represent the employees to the employer. It's not meant to be an US against THEM philosophy and unions have been making great strides to make their membership understand that. The union isn't meant to support individuals, it's meant to even the playing field between the collective rights of the employed and the needs and desires of the business. If you are fighting against the employer, the union does not want you because it represents a lot of money, time and work to 'make things work'. I'm not surprised you would think it's an antagonistic relationship because frankly, to you and your simplistic world view everything will always be "Good guy versus bad guy" but the best relationships in the world can be between a union that understands the role it has to play, and a company that understands the role the union plays.
One of the most successful union people I know personally, the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, practiced what he called 'intelligent militancy'. You didn't fight for the sake of fighting.
#95
Eriol
Eriol
Adam, I kind of agree with you, and I kind of don't. Somebody once said "whatever company has a union, deserves one." What they meant was that if a company treats its workers well, gives reasonable compensation, etc, etc, then a union isn't needed. When a company wants to exploit every last bit of person away from their workers, does everything possible to pit them against one another, etc, then a union is a good thing. Thus I'm kind of in the mindset that if a company was that good toward the people working for them, there's no need for a union. If they're not, then the union itself is not the problem, they're the symptom of the problem with the company.
Are there exceptions both ways? Absolutely. There's predatory unions looking to get more influence in companies both big and small (why does a 5-employee welding company need a union?), and companies where it's pretty much a "why is there a union here? Oh well, seems to work out." But I think the general rule stands.
Are there exceptions both ways? Absolutely. There's predatory unions looking to get more influence in companies both big and small (why does a 5-employee welding company need a union?), and companies where it's pretty much a "why is there a union here? Oh well, seems to work out." But I think the general rule stands.
#96
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I don't see it as antagonistic, I more am saying it's not going to work if a union has like. Not a full, united front.
#97
Adam
Canada recently passed a law stating that unions have to register their financials with the CRA in order to keep their tax exempt status. This means that the general public will get full knowledge of union finances including how much money they are spending on political activities and how much money their executive makes, no different than any other organization with tax exempt status. The unions are flipping their wigs saying that this is one of the worst assaults on unions in decades while the union membership are actually fairly supportive.
Adam
I would like to agree with you that a union wouldn't be needed if a company treats its workers well, gives reasonable compensation, but I've worked for too many companies that did treat workers well and give reasonable compensation where the union was just a holdover from days passed. And the union now sits there as some kind of vestigial labour department; not really adding any value to the employee/employer relationship while acting as a buffer for employees to do less and less work. At some point, there has to be the option to decertify. As it is, decertification drives are ugly, ugly, ugly affairs moreoften than not driven by ugliness of third parties to that employee/employer relationship.Adam, I kind of agree with you, and I kind of don't. Somebody once said "whatever company has a union, deserves one." What they meant was that if a company treats its workers well, gives reasonable compensation, etc, etc, then a union isn't needed. When a company wants to exploit every last bit of person away from their workers, does everything possible to pit them against one another, etc, then a union is a good thing. Thus I'm kind of in the mindset that if a company was that good toward the people working for them, there's no need for a union. If they're not, then the union itself is not the problem, they're the symptom of the problem with the company.
Are there exceptions both ways? Absolutely. There's predatory unions looking to get more influence in companies both big and small (why does a 5-employee welding company need a union?), and companies where it's pretty much a "why is there a union here? Oh well, seems to work out." But I think the general rule stands.
Canada recently passed a law stating that unions have to register their financials with the CRA in order to keep their tax exempt status. This means that the general public will get full knowledge of union finances including how much money they are spending on political activities and how much money their executive makes, no different than any other organization with tax exempt status. The unions are flipping their wigs saying that this is one of the worst assaults on unions in decades while the union membership are actually fairly supportive.
#98
Krisken
Krisken
That's because every entity hates transparency. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong in this instance, or that they are inherently bad.
#99
Adam
Adam
The invisible man doesn't hate transparency.That's because every entity hates transparency. Doesn't mean they aren't wrong in this instance, or that they are inherently bad.
#100
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'm basically torn about the right to work movement. On the one hand, I can see where unions are coming from in that when they do collective bargaining, the people who don't kick in union dues are basically freeloading off those who do. On the other, I've been witness to some pretty shady dealings from unions, so I think the right to belong to one should be optional.
I like the idea of competition between unions. Then again, I've been a pretty vocal opponent of any sort of monopoly on these boards so it's not that surprising.
I like the idea of competition between unions. Then again, I've been a pretty vocal opponent of any sort of monopoly on these boards so it's not that surprising.