Right to Work
-
-
Yes, the union contract covers everyone, even those that decide not to pay dues. I found it interesting that in our school district, the recent change in Oregon (don't remember, maybe 8-10 years ago) did not result in the dramatic decrease in union membership that union leadership feared. Of course, they (along with help from the AFT) mounted a huge campaign to convince everyone to join the association, which is difficult as it is illegal to campaign during work hours.
-
If someone does not want to join the union and pay union dues, do they still get the terms of the union contract? Or does the company have a separate non-union agreement with those not in the union?
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
If someone does not want to join the union and pay union dues, do they still get the terms of the union contract? Or does the company have a separate non-union agreement with those not in the union?
I live in a Right-to-work state.
-
If someone does not want to join the union and pay union dues, do they still get the terms of the union contract? Or does the company have a separate non-union agreement with those not in the union?
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
If someone does not want to join the union and pay union dues, do they still get the terms of the union contract? Or does the company have a separate non-union agreement with those not in the union?
What typically happens is the union will put the employer in a position that they will essentially require union membership as a condition of employment.
And if they don’t, the union members will generally make worklife into a living hell for the nonunion member. That is if the union doesn’t just strike in an effort to force the issue.
-
But, usually, aren't union contracts more favorable to the worker? (for example, more benefits, etc.). Now, I realize that these contracts can make it more un-profitable for the company, but that is not really what we are talking about.
My point is that if someone wants the benefits of a union contact, they should have to pay the union dues. I agree that if someone does not want to be part of the union, they should not have to be.
But, then maybe they will have a different contract. Maybe better, maybe worse.
-
But, usually, aren't union contracts more favorable to the worker? (for example, more benefits, etc.). Now, I realize that these contracts can make it more un-profitable for the company, but that is not really what we are talking about.
My point is that if someone wants the benefits of a union contact, they should have to pay the union dues. I agree that if someone does not want to be part of the union, they should not have to be.
But, then maybe they will have a different contract. Maybe better, maybe worse.
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
But, usually, aren't union contracts more favorable to the worker? (for example, more benefits, etc.). Now, I realize that these contracts can make it more un-profitable for the company, but that is not really what we are talking about.
My point is that if someone wants the benefits of a union contact, they should have to pay the union dues. I agree that if someone does not want to be part of the union, they should not have to be.
But, then maybe they will have a different contract. Maybe better, maybe worse.
Without Right To Work, you can have closed shops. Should a man or woman have to pay to work?
-
But, usually, aren't union contracts more favorable to the worker? (for example, more benefits, etc.). Now, I realize that these contracts can make it more un-profitable for the company, but that is not really what we are talking about.
My point is that if someone wants the benefits of a union contact, they should have to pay the union dues. I agree that if someone does not want to be part of the union, they should not have to be.
But, then maybe they will have a different contract. Maybe better, maybe worse.
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
But, usually, aren't union contracts more favorable to the worker? (for example, more benefits, etc.). Now, I realize that these contracts can make it more un-profitable for the company, but that is not really what we are talking about.
My point is that if someone wants the benefits of a union contact, they should have to pay the union dues. I agree that if someone does not want to be part of the union, they should not have to be.
But, then maybe they will have a different contract. Maybe better, maybe worse.
-
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I dont think I am being very clear with my points.
Why are companies usually against unions? Because they cost the company more money per employee, right? Or is it that unions remove flexibility that the companies need?
(In the US, I think that most unions have "out-lived" their usefulness and have not been able to adapt to the changing times, but that is a different discussion I guess.)
It just seems weird to me that people want the benefits that a union contract provides, but dont want to pay the dues. In my mind, a company should be able to hire who they want; union or nonunion. However, when the person is offered the job, he has to declare if he will take the union contract or the non union contract.
For example, I think I should get these insurance benefits, but I dont think I should have to pay the insurance premium.
-
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I dont think I am being very clear with my points.
Why are companies usually against unions? Because they cost the company more money per employee, right? Or is it that unions remove flexibility that the companies need?
(In the US, I think that most unions have "out-lived" their usefulness and have not been able to adapt to the changing times, but that is a different discussion I guess.)
It just seems weird to me that people want the benefits that a union contract provides, but dont want to pay the dues. In my mind, a company should be able to hire who they want; union or nonunion. However, when the person is offered the job, he has to declare if he will take the union contract or the non union contract.
For example, I think I should get these insurance benefits, but I dont think I should have to pay the insurance premium.
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I dont think I am being very clear with my points.
Why are companies usually against unions? Because they cost the company more money per employee, right? Or is it that unions remove flexibility that the companies need?
(In the US, I think that most unions have "out-lived" their usefulness and have not been able to adapt to the changing times, but that is a different discussion I guess.)
It just seems weird to me that people want the benefits that a union contract provides, but dont want to pay the dues. In my mind, a company should be able to hire who they want; union or nonunion. However, when the person is offered the job, he has to declare if he will take the union contract or the non union contract.
For example, I think I should get these insurance benefits, but I dont think I should have to pay the insurance premium.
I might not have been clear… I don’t believe that organized Union negotiated contracts are really worth it, period. Unions were necessary at one time but that day is long since gone. The labor market will dictate wages and general benefits far better than unions.
I grew up in a very pro union family but have seen enough to believe they do as much harm as good.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I dont think I am being very clear with my points.
Why are companies usually against unions? Because they cost the company more money per employee, right? Or is it that unions remove flexibility that the companies need?
(In the US, I think that most unions have "out-lived" their usefulness and have not been able to adapt to the changing times, but that is a different discussion I guess.)
It just seems weird to me that people want the benefits that a union contract provides, but dont want to pay the dues. In my mind, a company should be able to hire who they want; union or nonunion. However, when the person is offered the job, he has to declare if he will take the union contract or the non union contract.
For example, I think I should get these insurance benefits, but I dont think I should have to pay the insurance premium.
I might not have been clear… I don’t believe that organized Union negotiated contracts are really worth it, period. Unions were necessary at one time but that day is long since gone. The labor market will dictate wages and general benefits far better than unions.
I grew up in a very pro union family but have seen enough to believe they do as much harm as good.
@LuFins-Dad said in Right to Work:
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I dont think I am being very clear with my points.
Why are companies usually against unions? Because they cost the company more money per employee, right? Or is it that unions remove flexibility that the companies need?
(In the US, I think that most unions have "out-lived" their usefulness and have not been able to adapt to the changing times, but that is a different discussion I guess.)
It just seems weird to me that people want the benefits that a union contract provides, but dont want to pay the dues. In my mind, a company should be able to hire who they want; union or nonunion. However, when the person is offered the job, he has to declare if he will take the union contract or the non union contract.
For example, I think I should get these insurance benefits, but I dont think I should have to pay the insurance premium.
I might not have been clear… I don’t believe that organized Union negotiated contracts are really worth it, period. Unions were necessary at one time but that day is long since gone. The labor market will dictate wages and general benefits far better than unions.
I grew up in a very pro union family but have seen enough to believe they do as much harm as good.
Yep, been in the IPIU and AFSCME, neither of which did a whole lot for me.
-
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I pretty much agree. I think that unions in the US were needed way back when. Not so much now.
But, my point is still there. Let a company offer two contracts - one for union people and one for non-union. If a person accepts a job, they have to declare which contact they will take; union or non-non. If they take the union contact, they have to pay union dues. If they take the non-union, then no dues.
Back to my insurance example. If I want the benefit of the insurance negotiated rates with doctors, etc., then I need to pay the insurance premium. If I want my own rates, then no need to pay the premium. (I KNOW, I KNOW - apple to orange discussion, but you get my point).
When you join a "group", and pay money to a "group", you are perceiving that there is a "benefit" for your payment (discount because you are member of XX club, etc.). If you dont think the benefit is worth it, dont join the club but you dont get the "benefit" either.
-
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I pretty much agree. I think that unions in the US were needed way back when. Not so much now.
But, my point is still there. Let a company offer two contracts - one for union people and one for non-union. If a person accepts a job, they have to declare which contact they will take; union or non-non. If they take the union contact, they have to pay union dues. If they take the non-union, then no dues.
Back to my insurance example. If I want the benefit of the insurance negotiated rates with doctors, etc., then I need to pay the insurance premium. If I want my own rates, then no need to pay the premium. (I KNOW, I KNOW - apple to orange discussion, but you get my point).
When you join a "group", and pay money to a "group", you are perceiving that there is a "benefit" for your payment (discount because you are member of XX club, etc.). If you dont think the benefit is worth it, dont join the club but you dont get the "benefit" either.
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I pretty much agree. I think that unions in the US were needed way back when. Not so much now.
But, my point is still there. Let a company offer two contracts - one for union people and one for non-union. If a person accepts a job, they have to declare which contact they will take; union or non-non. If they take the union contact, they have to pay union dues. If they take the non-union, then no dues.
Back to my insurance example. If I want the benefit of the insurance negotiated rates with doctors, etc., then I need to pay the insurance premium. If I want my own rates, then no need to pay the premium. (I KNOW, I KNOW - apple to orange discussion, but you get my point).
When you join a "group", and pay money to a "group", you are perceiving that there is a "benefit" for your payment (discount because you are member of XX club, etc.). If you dont think the benefit is worth it, dont join the club but you dont get the "benefit" either.
You either have a closed shop or an open one. I don't think you can have it both ways.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I pretty much agree. I think that unions in the US were needed way back when. Not so much now.
But, my point is still there. Let a company offer two contracts - one for union people and one for non-union. If a person accepts a job, they have to declare which contact they will take; union or non-non. If they take the union contact, they have to pay union dues. If they take the non-union, then no dues.
Back to my insurance example. If I want the benefit of the insurance negotiated rates with doctors, etc., then I need to pay the insurance premium. If I want my own rates, then no need to pay the premium. (I KNOW, I KNOW - apple to orange discussion, but you get my point).
When you join a "group", and pay money to a "group", you are perceiving that there is a "benefit" for your payment (discount because you are member of XX club, etc.). If you dont think the benefit is worth it, dont join the club but you dont get the "benefit" either.
You either have a closed shop or an open one. I don't think you can have it both ways.
@Jolly said in Right to Work:
@taiwan_girl said in Right to Work:
@Jolly @LuFins-Dad I pretty much agree. I think that unions in the US were needed way back when. Not so much now.
But, my point is still there. Let a company offer two contracts - one for union people and one for non-union. If a person accepts a job, they have to declare which contact they will take; union or non-non. If they take the union contact, they have to pay union dues. If they take the non-union, then no dues.
Back to my insurance example. If I want the benefit of the insurance negotiated rates with doctors, etc., then I need to pay the insurance premium. If I want my own rates, then no need to pay the premium. (I KNOW, I KNOW - apple to orange discussion, but you get my point).
When you join a "group", and pay money to a "group", you are perceiving that there is a "benefit" for your payment (discount because you are member of XX club, etc.). If you dont think the benefit is worth it, dont join the club but you dont get the "benefit" either.
You either have a closed shop or an open one. I don't think you can have it both ways.
Is that a rule, or something companies/unions won't agree to?
Let the market decide.
Some company should be the first to offer this. If each side is confident in their status, then they should not be afraid to allow two contacts.
