|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Jun 9, 2012 7:58:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 11, 2012 7:33:38 GMT -5
Cut to the chase:
If "Right to work" was a choice for all states how many union members would choose to remain union workers currently ? How many new members would emerge??
If the only way to retain or get new members is by having a captive audience (closed shop or mandated membership) is does not say much for the unions appeal outside that shop. Giving members the choice of membership or not is a good snapshot of how people really feel about their local unions and what they get for their dues.
The only way the UAW would be "out" is if its members opted out. If people feel they are getting a good value for their dues then the UAW has nothing to worry about.
If its the other way around then they should be worried.
Similar to a restaurant if you get good food & service you come back. If you get lousy food and service you will choose not to come back. Union membership is along the same lines. If they treat the members well they have nothing to worry.
There is a big difference between public and private sector unions. Other than sharing the "union" tag one exists by retail sale of a product for profit and all wages, benefits and dues come from that profit. The other is solely funded by the public by the working's tax dollars.
|
|
|
|
Post by tryingtomakeit on Jun 12, 2012 13:41:41 GMT -5
Nice post cal. When IN went to RTW, my first thought was, will the unions bust their ass to make themselves more attractive to new members and the public, or will they hunker down and keep doing what theyve always done.
There has been a culture shift on the floor, at least Ive seen one. Dont know if the union has, or even cares. In the past, the union could count on the rank and file being died in the wool Dems, and party line voters. That is changing. There are more members that are more conservative leaning, and at the minimum, count themselves as libertarian.
Will the union try and appeal to these men/women? Or stay the course and only play to one group? Unions should plan, and tread carefully. All they have to do is look to Wisconsin. Just by ending state withdrawl of union dues, the teachers unions there have lost over 40% of their members, because they cant collect dues. What do you think would happen here, if somebody had to go around and try and collect $60 every month off of everybody on the floor? Good F'ing luck with that! And what would be the recourse? Ford wouldnt fire anybody.
The ball is definetly in the unions court. Will they adjust and adapt? Can they? Because, the old days are gone, and they arent coming back.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jun 12, 2012 15:24:05 GMT -5
"Right to work" is just a clever way to say, "We want to do away with Unions"
In every state that RTW has been enacted average wages are lower, and work place accidents have gone up. The corporate world profits greatly when Unions are eliminated.
Another reason teachers have left Wisconsin is because their wages are going down! Duh
I believe the majority of Americans don't specify any difference between public or private unions.
The worker is the Union, if you want your union to change get involved...
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 12, 2012 18:49:53 GMT -5
"Right to work" is just a clever way to say, "We want to do away with Unions" In every state that RTW has been enacted average wages are lower, and work place accidents have gone up. The corporate world profits greatly when Unions are eliminated. Another reason teachers have left Wisconsin is because their wages are going down! Duh I believe the majority of Americans don't specify any difference between public or private unions. The worker is the Union, if you want your union to change get involved... The teachers opted out of the union, not teaching & their jobs. Their choice. |
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jun 12, 2012 21:16:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 13, 2012 3:21:32 GMT -5
You get partial credit (close but not entirely correct). A lot of those dedicated teachers bailed into retirement. For others that now have a choice to maintain union membership or opt out many are opting out. Amazing when the employee can think and decide on their own behalf. news.investors.com/article/613850/201206051909/teachers-unions-at-core-of-wisconsin-recall-fight.htmCut/ paste: Meanwhile, individual Wisconsin teachers are opting out of union membership. The American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin, representing 17,000 teachers, has lost 6,000 members since the reforms began. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Jun 13, 2012 4:33:25 GMT -5
If u don't pay dues you dont get what the union negotiates for.Plus union does not have to represent you.Its union busting all it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 14, 2012 9:17:14 GMT -5
If u don't pay dues you dont get what the union negotiates for.Plus union does not have to represent you.Its union busting all it is. If members opt out they obviously felt they were not being represented well in the first place if they decided to opt out. This is what unions fear the most, giving that choice to each paying member and letting them decide. Its not union busting when the members opt out by choice. The unions have only themselves to blame in this situation. |
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jun 14, 2012 14:07:36 GMT -5
Wisconsin took away the right for a Union to collective bargain for its members.... thats why members decided to stop paying dues. I don't believe the members were that upset with the Union. The states legislature took away any use for the Union....
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 14, 2012 14:42:15 GMT -5
Wisconsin took away the right for a Union to collective bargain for its members.... thats why members decided to stop paying dues. I don't believe the members were that upset with the Union. The states legislature took away any use for the Union.... Wrong again. fwd4.me/13AtWith respect to most remaining state employees –with the exception of police, firefighters and state troopers who are exempt- here are the changes: Collective bargaining is limited to negotiating wages. or fwd4.me/13AvUnion leaders in Wisconsin blame several provisions of the law for the decline in membership, particularly the elimination of automatic union-dues collection. With public employees now able to opt out of paying union dues, many are electing to do just that, and the unions are cutting them loose as a result. Because the law also compelled public employees to bear a greater portion of their benefit costs, many employees simply cannot afford the additional monthly deduction for union dues. But even those who can afford to continue paying dues have questioned their efficacy, recognizing the diminished clout unions will be able to exercise in the absence of collective bargaining rights. Tina Pocernich, a researcher at a Wisconsin technical college and mother of five, left her union in March after paying dues for 15 years, explaining, “It was a hard decision for me to make. But there’s nothing the union can do any more.” |
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Jun 14, 2012 15:54:47 GMT -5
South Carolina Tea Party official, quoted after Scott Walkers recall win....
"We're trying to do away with unions all together........they aren't needed anymore......"
Many of them are just saying, openly.......
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jun 14, 2012 18:57:21 GMT -5
Wisconsin took away the right for a Union to collective bargain for its members.... thats why members decided to stop paying dues. I don't believe the members were that upset with the Union. The states legislature took away any use for the Union.... That's exactly what I posted, if the State government takes away collective bargaining what did you expect to happen? If you can't collective bargain for wages what else matters... It doesn't matter who the Union represents, it isn't right. It's just Union busting, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 15, 2012 1:45:50 GMT -5
They have collective bargaining.....just not for wages.
Similar to unionized federal employees.
Making the statement "union busting" is indicative of an outside force or entity.
When union members opt out by their own choice you can not blame someone else.
As I said before is does not say much for recruiting new members when your existing members opt out when given the choice or option. If the only way to get or retain members is by force or having a captive audience your days are numbered as an organization.
Placing the blame else ware is weak at best. Giving people their own choice, what a concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jun 15, 2012 4:53:41 GMT -5
As I posted, if a Union can't collective bargain for wages, why even have the Union?
The "outside force" is easy for me see here.....
I guess it's all a matter of personal perception...
I will support the right of Unions to collective bargain for their members.... No matter if their auto workers, teachers, firemen, police, garbagemen, etc... That's why I'm a Union member.
|
|
|
|
Post by ackspac on Jun 15, 2012 18:06:39 GMT -5
As I posted, if a Union can't collective bargain for wages, why even have the Union? . Exactly. Ask our 2nd tier workers about that. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Jun 15, 2012 21:14:40 GMT -5
So if u pay no dues u get none of the union Benifits.Pretty simple to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jun 22, 2012 6:33:23 GMT -5
This is the strength of "right to work," it allows us to opt out of union dues as if it is a god given right to receive those services for free. As more people are given the "right" to not pay for those services the unions become less able to represent workers at the table giving people the excuse to say "See, the union sucks. Why would I pay union dues if they cant -insert your excuse here- for me?" This is a spiral that ends with us saving $50 a month but costing us on our hourly wages and benefits. Do the math on that.
Instead of creating obviously anti-labor legislation that would have encountered stronger opposition, they decided to de-fund unions over the long term by allowing some people to receive union services for free.
It seems like I remember something like this in U.S. history. Does anyone recall a time in our history when a group of people could legally receive the labor of others without financial compensation? Someone help me out with this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 22, 2012 9:00:35 GMT -5
This is the strength of "right to work," it allows us to opt out of union dues as if it is a god given right to receive those services for free. As more people are given the "right" to not pay for those services the unions become less able to represent workers at the table giving people the excuse to say "See, the union sucks. Why would I pay union dues if they cant -insert your excuse here- for me?" This is a spiral that ends with us saving $50 a month but costing us on our hourly wages and benefits. Do the math on that. Instead of creating obviously anti-labor legislation that would have encountered stronger opposition, they decided to de-fund unions over the long term by allowing some people to receive union services for free. It seems like I remember something like this in U.S. history. Does anyone recall a time in our history when a group of people could legally receive the labor of others without financial compensation? Someone help me out with this one. Your argument sounds good on face value but that's it. Allowing members to decide or vote on elective membership Vs forced membership in any union is the freedom of choice. There is no god given right to any wages or services. All wages and benefits are paid by the company anyway, not the union. If a person does opt out the union only looses dues. I think all the 2nd tier employees got the shaft and I would have liked to see the union and its members all stand firm on 2 tier wage BS. That did not happen. The employees that made higher wages had the attitude "it does not affect me" and did not really care. The union only see's new dues paying members and was less concerned with what they get paid, they want head count. The reduction of union membership is a combination of poor public perception and people willing to do work for less money. Its hard to negotiate a higher wage for workers when people will line up for miles outside the same plant willing to do it for 1/2. Companies knows this and the union knows this and enter 2nd tier wages. When 2nd tier kicks in eventually we all will get an adjustment down at some point. That's just the way it is and not the unions fault or the companies. I wish the UAW and all unions would focus on really working with the company and its members and get out of politics. Trying to force a position or control membership or membership rules at a federal level only bolsters many peoples opposition to unions. If you can not entice people to want to join you have a problem. Forcing them to join or stay members only add to the problems. I have no problems pay union dues. Its when people feel they are not getting what they are paying for the idea to opt out comes to mind. Don't be mad at anyone else for the person paying the dues to have those thoughts and decide accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jun 24, 2012 0:23:07 GMT -5
When you chose to apply and accept a position in a union shop you made your choice. Now you want to weaken the organization that is responsible for higher wages and benefits (compared to non-union shops) by pretending you are loosing a freedom if you cant receive their services for free. Instead of living with your choice you are contributing to a cause that is attempting to undermine unions.
You also claim the union should stay out of politics. The problem is that national legislation is where the unions ability to represent us is being eroded, and you want to contribute to further decline.
You are using the excuse that you are being denied the freedom of choice when you have already made the choice, and continue to make it every day when you report at the plant. Just like a consumer, brother, instead of asking a company that continually disappoints you to give you their product for free, move on to one that works for you.
You have made your choice; either accept it or move on so that those that want a union can have a shot at a functioning union.
Just like your hatred of the epa, when you discuss unions you have motives other than the excuses given. In this case it is to end union political influence with the pretense of not having a freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 24, 2012 12:24:44 GMT -5
When you chose to apply and accept a position in a union shop you made your choice. Now you want to weaken the organization that is responsible for higher wages and benefits (compared to non-union shops) by pretending you are loosing a freedom if you cant receive their services for free. Instead of living with your choice you are contributing to a cause that is attempting to undermine unions. You also claim the union should stay out of politics. The problem is that national legislation is where the unions ability to represent us is being eroded, and you want to contribute to further decline. You are using the excuse that you are being denied the freedom of choice when you have already made the choice, and continue to make it every day when you report at the plant. Just like a consumer, brother, instead of asking a company that continually disappoints you to give you their product for free, move on to one that works for you. You have made your choice; either accept it or move on so that those that want a union can have a shot at a functioning union. Just like your hatred of the epa, when you discuss unions you have motives other than the excuses given. In this case it is to end union political influence with the pretense of not having a freedom. Most people accept a job #1 and if its union represented that is a lesser consideration (for most). If this job comes along with forced membership in that union people must accept it as a condition of employment. We all have done that. There is no choice. You fail to understand the difference between the two. The union is there to serve ALL members and if it does so there is no outside threat to harm it. If the members feel its not representing them or providing them what they are paying for then the union has only themselves to worry about. Giving people / members a choice is something union management fears the most becasue it will allow each and every individual member to have their opinion heard and voted on with their wallet. I work for Ford, the union works for me. Ford pays me for work and I pay the union from my wages. Its not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Jun 24, 2012 12:34:53 GMT -5
Again, the destruction of ALL UNIONISM is what these people are after.
They have flat said it. They've publicly laid out a plan on how they are going to do it.
They've invested untold millions in doing it.
And so far the plan is working as stated.......There is literally NOTHING to stop them.
There was some push back in Ohio.......but its just a matter of time.
These people actively get together and discuss how they are going to rid the country of unions.
And the PRIMARY weapon in this battle, for them, other than cash, is the union members themselves.
Union members have demonstrated that they will participate in the destruction of unionism, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
|
|
