Unions

EdsonNascimento

Why is it bad to allow workers to opt out of being part of a union and keep their jobs?

And, why are unions so afraid of allowing folks to exercise free will?

Monster Rain

I can't answer the first part about whether it's good or bad to allow people to opt out without losing their jobs but I can tell you that the reason unions oppose that sort of thing is because they lose their bargaining leverage if members leave because the non-union workers cannot strike without losing their jobs. So that's obviously a bad thing from the union's standpoint.

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Why is it bad to allow workers to opt out of being part of a union and keep their jobs?

And, why are unions so afraid of allowing folks to exercise free will?

and why are companies afraid to allow workers to join or form a union...?

mookieb10

Because you can end up like ford mc if u make a bad deal.

blueandwhite

Allowing employees to opt out of a union simply allows employers to eliminate unionization.

If employees are able to opt out of a union, shouldn't they be able to opt out of minimum wage and worker safety legislation as well? There will always be somebody desperate enough to work for nothing. Perhaps the best solution is to simply outsource all of the jobs to China, India or Mexico.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Why is it bad to allow workers to opt out of being part of a union and keep their jobs?

And, why are unions so afraid of allowing folks to exercise free will?

I'm able to opt out of my union and keep my job. What union are you referring to?

catefrances

non union workers in danger of losing their jobs for striking seems like a good reason to join the union. plus theres strength in numbers

whygohome

catefrances wrote:

non union workers in danger of losing their jobs for striking seems like a good reason to join the union. plus theres strength in numbers

Or to be protected form dying in a coal mine...or on an oil rig...........

mookieb10

whygohome wrote:

catefrances wrote:

non union workers in danger of losing their jobs for striking seems like a good reason to join the union. plus theres strength in numbers

Or to be protected form dying in a coal mine...or on an oil rig...........

I dont get it, non unionized workers are allowed to have wrongful death and/or workmen's comp claims filed on their behalf... Although i will agree that one strength of unions is creating safer working conditions.

ONCE DEVIDED

people have the right in australia to either be in a union or not. but my big beef with non union workers in my workplace is this.
last year I had to sit on picket line for 2 weeks to force the hand of our company to pay us at the same level as other companies making the same type of machinary in our region. not more than, just the same.
we had a large contingent who were not in the union who did work through this time. Thats their right and i make no complaint.
however when we finally come to an agreement those non unionised workers got the same pay increase, the same benifets that we all suffered for. How is that fair
The way I see it is that
_ Unionised workers join together using their strength in numbers to force the companies hand. during negotiations. we pay fees to have somebody represent us
- non unionised are individuals they represent themselves.
non unionised workers should not get these payrises as they didnt join in any negotiations.
If they do want their payrises they should at least pay a fee to the unions at negotiation time. or negotiate for themselves

Thoughts_Arrive

Unions are scum.
They thrive when the Labor party is in charge and cause havoc for all.

ONCE DEVIDED

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Unions are scum.
They thrive when the Labor party is in charge and cause havoc for all.

so your calling me scum. thanks mate

could i sugest maybe changing your name to waiting for THOUGHTS TO ARRIVE frrom the liberal party

Im a member of a union. and i want just pay for the work I do. I want the right to work safely.
so you say unions cause havoc for all what do you base this on??

at present in the media- Quantas is being held to ransom by unions and the LABOR government is instructing all to negotiate .

reality is more that Qantas made a large profit last year but insists that it needs to shed thousands of employees. sending jobs overseas. ( isnt that one of your anti carbon tax complaints)

http://www.news.com.au/business/qantas- ... 6121001509

so the workers in their bid to negotiate with the company have only one barganing chip THEIR LABOR and have threatened on quite a few occasions to remove it. its their right.

Thoughts_Arrive

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Unions are scum.
They thrive when the Labor party is in charge and cause havoc for all.

so your calling me scum. thanks mate

could i sugest maybe changing your name to waiting for THOUGHTS TO ARRIVE frrom the liberal party

Im a member of a union. and i want just pay for the work I do. I want the right to work safely.
so you say unions cause havoc for all what do you base this on??

at present in the media- Quantas is being held to ransom by unions and the LABOR government is instructing all to negotiate .

reality is more that Qantas made a large profit last year but insists that it needs to shed thousands of employees. sending jobs overseas. ( isnt that one of your anti carbon tax complaints)

http://www.news.com.au/business/qantas- ... 6121001509

so the workers in their bid to negotiate with the company have only one barganing chip THEIR LABOR and have threatened on quite a few occasions to remove it. its their right.

Bla bla bla....
If provoked will strike, touch one touch all, no ticket no start bla bla bla.
Not talking Qantas, in general okay.

The union members on Vic's desal plant have links to outlaw bikie gangs.
A lot of building unionists are thugs that intimidate others.

I can't wait for the Liberal party to be in charge to put an end to your party.
Now stop causing havoc for innocent travelers and get back to work.

cincybearcat

mookieb10 wrote:

Although i will agree that one strength of unions is creating safer working conditions.

I'm not sure this is the case anymore. It certainly was the case. I find Unions get in the way of safety just as much if not more than management now.

ONCE DEVIDED

cincybearcat wrote:

mookieb10 wrote:

Although i will agree that one strength of unions is creating safer working conditions.

I'm not sure this is the case anymore. It certainly was the case. I find Unions get in the way of safety just as much if not more than management now.

This may be said to be true in big companies, usually with an entrenched union in place.
however a lot of small business's have very much less safety, probably as a resullt of unions being not used/allowed in those conditions

blueandwhite

cincybearcat wrote:

mookieb10 wrote:

Although i will agree that one strength of unions is creating safer working conditions.

I'm not sure this is the case anymore. It certainly was the case. I find Unions get in the way of safety just as much if not more than management now.

As I see it, the problem is that many established unions are businesses unto themselves. They collect dues and pay their corporate structure obscene amounts of money to 'negotiate' for their workers. While unions can certainly do good, like much of corporate America they can also be corrupted and ignore the basic rights of their constituency. Unfortunately, while unions are quick to accuse their employers of acting in bad faith, many unions will do the same thing standing up for woefully negligent employees who refuse to do an adequate job.

Unions still have a place in the workplace, but they are far from perfect.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Why is it bad to allow workers to opt out of being part of a union and keep their jobs?

And, why are unions so afraid of allowing folks to exercise free will?

I'm able to opt out of my union and keep my job. What union are you referring to?

i think most in MN operate that way. Right to work states are a big republican goal.

It isn't union specific it is state specific.

I cannot do the same at my job. I either pay 35 a month for no raises for 4 years and for crappy people to keep their jobs over good ones, or I pay 47 as a full member so I can vote on the crappy plans that save crappy people.
It doesn't matter, either way it is more money for the union to give 87 million dollars to candidates I don't agree with...Something seems very wrong with allowing one group to spend that much money...I don't know much about campaign finance, but this seems wrong to me.

davidtrios

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933.

EdsonNascimento

Davidtrios wrote:

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933.

Who said anything about closing unions? Who said we need to reduce salaries? I love the extremes folks will go to tyring to make a point only to make themselves look silly.

Let the unions perform. And let folks decide if they want to participate or not. How easy and American is that?

High perfomers would actually see their compensation go up.

davidtrios

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Davidtrios wrote:

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933.

Who said anything about closing unions? Who said we need to reduce salaries? I love the extremes folks will go to tyring to make a point only to make themselves look silly.

Let the unions perform. And let folks decide if they want to participate or not. How easy and American is that?

High perfomers would actually see their compensation go up.

right wingers basically say this all of the time...they share an opinion with AH :?

Monster Rain

Oh, you gotta love the way the Nazi card gets played around here. Please find me one quote from anyone in the U.S. who advocates taking the unions' money and throwing their leaders in prison. It should be easy since right-wingers say it so often.

Davidtrios wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Davidtrios wrote:

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933.

Who said anything about closing unions? Who said we need to reduce salaries? I love the extremes folks will go to tyring to make a point only to make themselves look silly.

Let the unions perform. And let folks decide if they want to participate or not. How easy and American is that?

High perfomers would actually see their compensation go up.

right wingers basically say this all of the time...they share an opinion with AH :?