| Author |
Message |
    
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 03:08 pm: | 
|
It is about the employer. The employees don't choose whether a shop is open or closed, the employer ultimately does. Right-to-work laws take that choice away from employers.
Employees who accept employment in closed shops presumably do so with their eyes open. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 03:11 pm: |
|
"The employees don't choose whether a shop is open or closed, the employer ultimately does"
Management gets to vote on whether a shop is unionized?  Wow. Is this part of the new "card check, we don't need to vote on it" process? |
Boltrider
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 03:16 pm: |
|
Your compulsory service will be greatly appreciated. |
Boltrider
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 03:18 pm: |
|
 |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 03:38 pm: |
|
>>> Right-to-work laws take that choice away from employers.
Not so much. Are you imagining that in right to work states a business may not elect to permit unionization? Of course they may, anytime they like. And the employees may choose to join or not join the union. So in a right to work state, everyone has more choice, except the union thugs and their gov't cohorts. Big Unionism is nothing but a mob out to take people's money, nothing more. |
Britchri10
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 03:55 pm: |
|
FWIW: I live in a right to work state.
My employer has a union contract that covers my employment.
I do not belong to the union but I could join it if I wanted to.
(Personally, I wish the union would go away as it complicates a lot of things for me in my work.)
Chris C |
Paint_shaker
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:14 pm: |
|
Right to work= Yes, you have the right to work and you have the right to NOT join a union.
Right to work also= Your employer has the right to terminate you at ANY time for ANY reason and leave you with the right to minimal (if any) recourse...
Or... Your employer can decide to change the conditions of your employment, even though you were expressly provided those conditions in a written and agreed upon contract almost many years ago. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:20 pm: |
|
Termination without cause = wrongful termination suit = company loses lots of money.
Valuable employee = doesn't get terminated without cause.
Be a valuable employee. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:23 pm: |
|
In a closed shop state you can choose to work in a union shop or not and the employees cab vote to join or not join a union. Wisconsin is closed shop but I would bet that most employees in this state are not covered by a union. Even most manufacturing employees may be non-union.
You are not exactly locked up in some sort of terrible oppressive situation in Wisconsin. You have lots of choice. |
Britchri10
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:35 pm: |
|
The union & the employer negotiate my employment terms. It's a contract between the union & my employer. As stated, I cannot be terminated without cause. I get the "benefits" of the contract between my employer & the union even though I am not a member.
& it's still a "right to work" state.
& I still don't like the way the union interferes in my work day.
Chris C |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:43 pm: |
|
Management gets to vote on whether a shop is unionized?
Are you imagining that in right to work states a business may not elect to permit unionization?
You guys are putting words in my mouth. I'll say it again: the distinction here is between open shops (voluntary membership in a union) and closed shops (union membership as a condition of employment). My state places no restriction on which type of union shop an employer wishes to operate.
I can't be any more clear. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:43 pm: |
|
If a employee choses not to be union As the Employer I still have to pay the union benefits as if the person were in the union.
So end up paying insurance and retirement to the union that the employee will never receive! The union will file with NRLB to force us to fire the non union employee
if a union worker is on the bench and we are working a WHITE ticket guy.
The Mob is easier to get rid of easier to deal with in reality lol They will help you collect your Money so they can get theirs. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:44 pm: |
|
Your employer can decide to change the conditions of your employment, even though you were expressly provided those conditions in a written and agreed upon contract almost many years ago.
No more so than an employer can break a contract with a union. Often the contract will specify the ramifications of breaking the contract (often there are very valid reasons for doing so). If the employer fails to live up to his end he can be sued and will lose in court.
My personal experience... I've worked under many written contracts. Never had a problem.
Tell us how legislation requiring all shops to be open ones isn't government intervention in the free market.
By open I presume you mean non-union. There is no such law, or one being proposed that I'm aware of. If you mean a shop in a right to work state, it simply means that the employer has the right to be a union member or not. Is it not a fundamental right for an individual to have choice in what groups he joins? It takes legislation to create a situation where a person is forced to join a union (or the Baath party). Is the government staying out of it when BO states he will only give contracts to union shops as part of his stimulus program? See any problems with that? If not you may not understand the problems of the Baath party under Saddam either. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:47 pm: |
|
Look up the Davis Bacon laws and you will find many of the things you have heard are Myths about open shops if you have a Union you are for all practical purposes
Closed! |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 04:48 pm: |
|
I can't be any more clear.
I'm not sure you could be more confused. |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 05:09 pm: |
|
I'm not sure you could be more confused.
Just because you say I'm confused does not make it so. Tell us what I'm confused about.
Is it not a fundamental right for an individual to have choice in what groups he joins?
Absolutely. Don't apply for a job in a closed shop if you don't want to join a union. Is that confusing?
Also, I suggest you not confuse compulsory membership in a political party with trade union membership as a condition of employment. Apples & oranges.
Kenm123t, tell us about Davis Bacon laws. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 05:32 pm: |
|
Tell us what I'm confused about.
For starters you seem to think that it's employers who decide to make a shop a union shop. If it were up to the employer, how many do you really think would put up with strikes and other union BS? The fact is that the employees vote on bringing in unions, usually under pressure from the unions. That's why unions want card check, where the vote will be out in the open with the full pressure of the union on the individual to vote union.
Absolutely. Don't apply for a job in a closed shop if you don't want to join a union. Is that confusing?
Why should there be such a restriction on personal freedoms? Are you not free in the US to do as you wish, except as prohibited by law? The simple fact is that unions hold this power over people with the blessing of the lawmakers who are restricting the types of jobs you can hold unless you join a union. There is zero difference in that and what Saddam did with the Baath party.
Also, I suggest you not confuse compulsory membership in a political party with trade union membership as a condition of employment.
If you don't see the political connection in unions then you really are confused. The union takes money from employees and uses it in the political process as they see fit without the blessing of the individual from whom it was confiscated. If you think people joined the Baath party in Iraq because the agreed with the politics you are simply clueless to what was going on. They joined to provide a better life for their families. They also virtually sold their souls when they did so. I see little difference between that and what many unions do. The only real difference is legal hair splitting. |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Interesting in that we voted OUR union OUT.
We could see how it was reducing our flexibility, our ability to respond to customer. The shop floor is still IAM. |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 05:56 pm: |
|
For starters you seem to think that it's employers who decide to make a shop a union shop.
No, what I wrote was that employers choose whether to run an open or a closed shop. Employees decide whether or not to unionize.
Why should there be such a restriction on personal freedoms?
The ability to choose a prospective employer on the merits of their conditions of employment is an exercise in personal freedom. My non-union job places plenty of conditions on my employment, all which may be considered restrictions of my personal freedom, in a literal sense.
If you don't see the political connection in unions then you really are confused.
I do not deny the cozy relationship between unions and politics any more than I deny the cozy relationship between employers and politics. Unlike ruling political parties in some totalitarian regimes, though, union members in closed shops still get to vote on the direction they take. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 06:16 pm: |
|
No, what I wrote was that employers choose whether to run an open or a closed shop. Employees decide whether or not to unionize.
I don't see what you are considering open/closed. State law determines if you have the right to work in a union shop without being a union member, not employees. We seem to agree that employees, not the employer decide if they want to be union. What exactly are you considering to be open/closed? |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 06:25 pm: |
|
What exactly are you considering to be open/closed?
My earlier post:
quote:You guys are putting words in my mouth. I'll say it again: the distinction here is between open shops (voluntary membership in a union) and closed shops (union membership as a condition of employment). My state places no restriction on which type of union shop an employer wishes to operate.
I can't be any more clear.
I'm going to look up the Davis Bacon laws Kenm123t alluded to. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 06:28 pm: |
|
There are no "closed shops" in right to work states.
Only the unions can decide whether or not you can be an employee of a company and NOT elect to be a union member.
The employer doesn't care one way or another. As far as the employer is concerned all employees that fall under the collectively bargained agreement are treated the same. Whether or not the union collects dues and has membership of 100% of the employee base is irrelevant.
Why would a union run an "open shop" in a non-right to work state? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 06:50 pm: |
|
There are no "closed shops" in right to work states.
Exactly!
Only the unions can decide whether or not you can be an employee of a company and NOT elect to be a union member.
The employer doesn't care one way or another. As far as the employer is concerned all employees that fall under the collectively bargained agreement are treated the same. Whether or not the union collects dues and has membership of 100% of the employee base is irrelevant.
Why would a union run an "open shop" in a non-right to work state?
And exactly! It just doesn't happen that I've ever heard of. And if it did, it certainly isn't the employer's decision.
Buellkowski is confused on this issue. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 07:01 pm: |
|
Try not to use Wiki as a source but:
United States
The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947. The union shop, where employees must join the union after being hired, has also been deemed a violation of the U.S. Constitution.[3] An employer may not lawfully agree with a union to hire only union members; it may, on the other hand, agree to require employees to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues to it after a set period of time. Similarly, while a union could require an employer that had agreed to a closed shop contract prior to 1947 to fire an employee who had been expelled from the union for any reason, it cannot demand that an employer fire an employee under a union shop contract for any reason other than failure to pay those dues that are uniformly required of all employees.
Construction unions and unions in other industries with similar employment patterns have coped with that prohibition by using exclusive hiring halls as a means of controlling the supply of labor. While such exclusive hiring halls do not, in a strictly formal sense, require union membership as a condition of employment, they do so in practical terms, in that an employee seeking to be dispatched to work through the union's hiring hall must either pay union dues or pay a roughly equivalent hiring hall fee. So long as the hiring hall is run on a non-discriminatory basis and adheres to clearly stated eligibility and dispatch standards it is lawful. The Taft-Hartley Act also bars unions from requiring unreasonably high initiation fees as a condition of membership in order to prevent unions from using initiation fees as a device to keep non-union employees out of a particular industry.
For the entertainment industry, unions representing performers have as their first rule one banning any represented performer from working on any non-union production. Penalties are imposed on the union member, not on the employer, and can lead to loss of union membership. Most major productions are union productions, and non-members join the Screen Actors Guild through performing as extras and earning three union vouchers, or by being given a speaking line and entering that way. The other performance unions do not have minimum membership standards, but joining the union bars one from working on non-union productions.
Also, the National Labor Relations Act permits construction employers to enter into pre-hire agreements, in which they agree to draw their workforces from a pool of employees dispatched by the union. The NLRA prohibits pre-hire agreements outside the construction industry.[4]
|
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 07:03 pm: |
|
Again from Wiki:
Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the federal Taft–Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring, which would require the workplace to be a closed shop. |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 07:06 pm: |
|
Only the unions can decide whether or not you can be an employee of a company and NOT elect to be a union member.
Really? Does the union set the employer's conditions of employment? No. Can a union negotiate a contract with an employer that turns a workplace into a closed shop? Yes. Is an employer forced to accept such a contract? No.
Buellkowski is confused on this issue.
No, I'm not. I think you feign confusion at my posts, but express sudden clarity when someone of your political ilk states the same thing I did. Such as:
quote:There are no "closed shops" in right to work states.
Exactly!
I stated this distinction repeatedly.
We'll let this string's readers decide the merits of our individual arguments. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 07:06 pm: |
|
The "closed shop" is actually an "agency shop". |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 07:49 pm: |
|
Really? Does the union set the employer's conditions of employment?
They actually can and do set the condition of union membership.
Can a union negotiate a contract with an employer that turns a workplace into a closed shop? Yes. Is an employer forced to accept such a contract? No.
The only way out of that us to bust the union. Very difficult to do. Even more so when the government and unions are holding hands (see WI). |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 07:53 pm: |
|
I stated this distinction repeatedly.
We'll let this string's readers decide the merits of our individual arguments.
The problem is that you are pretending that there is such a thing as an open shop in a non-right to work state. |
Doerman
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 06:22 pm: |
|
Boeing must be doing something right |
P47b
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 09:47 pm: |
|
You guys are talking about all other states other than Kansas for the union.
I have been on both sides of the union and been screwed by the company & state for falsely being fired (nonunion) and another company the union screwed me out of a back pay.
Where there is money, there is greed, and it can go both ways. It just depends on who has the power and the bigger mouth.
Boeing is bleeding money right now and is looking at getting rid of manufacturing for the commercial side and have been planning on it since 1990.
Boeing will be in a few years, a nameplate on a door in Chicago with no manufacturing being done by them. All work will be outsourced.
There are a few contracts that were coming due in the next few years that the US Government stated in the contract that they do the work in Wichita. Those contracts including AF1 are up.
The cost of, up keep, operations & Taxes in Wichita are way above what Boeing Wichita is bringing in for this facility.
No I do not work for Boeing, but I did for 24 1/2 years before I got kicked to the curb.
If they announced tomorrow that they were going to finish the tanker here in Wichita I would be one of the first to apply even if it was for 4 years. That is just where my heart is.
I didn't leave Boeing, Boeing left me and about 15 thousand other people here in Wichita. |
