The lawsuit says the law requires unions to represent those who are not required to pay union dues, who then receive an inequitable benefit....
In a statement, Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, said... "Allowing some workers to get fair representation for nothing is unfair, un-American and not our Wisconsin."
११ मार्च, २०१५
"A group of unions filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block the newly signed right-to-work law, claiming the law is unconstitutional."
"The lawsuit argues that the right-to-work law is an 'unconstitutional taking of private property' without adequate compensation, which will bring harm to the unions."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७२ टिप्पण्या:
Somehow, I doubt any similar argument has overturned right to work laws in any other state. Good luck with that argument.
It will has as much effect as the Solidarity Singer morons.
So...representation without taxation is tyranny?
Workers represent themselves.
So let me get this straight...unions are suing because if they have to represent someone without them paying for it that its doing "irreparable harm"?
I thought unions were all about the "working man"? All this lawsuit confirms is that they're all about the amount of $ in their coffers.
The left and unions in this state finds a new way to beclown themselves everyday.
Am I missing something? Why not change the law so that non-union workers don't get represented by unions?
There's a disconnect they will have difficulty connecting. The "property" is the right to union dues from non-union members. The claim to this right is based on a requirement that they provide services to these workers. Except they are not required to provide services to non-union members (whatever that service may be).
This seems more like a contractual issue than a takings issue. The workers don't want this contract (representation by the union) but the union wants the government to enforce it anyway
Ol' Phil Neuenfeldt and the AFL-CIO had no problems taking union dues for decades from people who really didnt want to be in an union, but just wanted a job so they paid anyway whether they agreed with it or not. Its beyond rich that within 1 day of Walker signing this law, unions are suing because in their mind its "un-American" to collect something without paying for it. Meanwhile this same AFL-CIO will stick millions of $ of campaign cash into the accounts of Democrat politicians who support government giving money to people who really didnt earn it through welfare programs.
What a country we live in.
Man, that's thin.
Collecting for the collective is nice work if you can find it. Why not pay them for doing nothing so the work rules crap is eliminated...oh, that would just make them into government bureaucrats.
If Unions actually performed a useful service to their members, people would want to pay.
Free legal advice, notary services, low-interest loans, reduced prices for staples, that kind of thing. Of course, that would cost money, and I suspect Union Leaders would rather spend that money on themselves.
If Unions actually performed a useful service to their members, people would want to pay.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
If I were a worker trying to decide whether it is worth it to join a union, I think wasting the union's limited resources on laughable court cases like this one would make me less likely to join.
How about providing benefits to members, doing more to secure their jobs and make them more pleasant? You know, the things that might make someone more willing to part with a portion of their wages?
"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
In this case, the cow is diseased and on its last legs, and you wouldn't want to be drinking any "milk" that came from it. That's precisely the problem here.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Well, that's a great slogan for liberalism if I ever heard one.
Its rich to see liberals get mad over this, but those of us concerned with petty things like welfare fraud, illegal immigration, etc. are radical right-wingers.
I work in an office where some employees are unionized and some are not. The union gives some benefits to its members that are not available to non-union members. Some people think that is worth paying dues for, others do not.
If the union cannot survive under this system, then the union should not survive. Just like any other business.
BTW, takings clause? What is the union's position on corporate personhood?
If there is in fact some law requiring unions to provide services to non-members, wouldn't it be that law (and not right-to-work) that was unconstitutional?
On some other blog, the author noted the following "drill" being played out:
1) Unions know that this is a losing case for them, however;
2) Will manage to get a Dane County judge to issue an injunction preventing implementation;
3) Which will be overturned at some point by a higher court;
4) In the meantime unions continue to collect union dues.
Hopefully when 3) happens, those affected will be able to recover what they paid during the injunction period.
I've never understood how forcing people and companies to pay and work with unions- a private organization- was constitutional.
I liked MadMan's comment. He's right.
The free rider claim is unconvincing. Someone does something without your participation or consent then claims it benefits you and because they claim it benefits you they must be compensated by you for something you never asked for.
The union's assumption their agreement is a 'benefit' to everyone is dubious as well. How do they know they're a better negotiator than me, or that they know with such certainty the optimal combination of benefits and compensation I would choose for myself?
Contracts between labor and management only apply to members of the union. Non-union workers save on dues but do not gain from collective bargaining.
It is hard to see where any fair-minded person can object to this arrangement.
The Unions are arguing that they cannot exist because they violate the Fourteenth Amendment, or they are arguing that individual liberty is in the public domain that it can be taken with just compensation (i.e. eminent domain), or that workers' rights can be assumed without their explicit consent under the commerce clause a la Obamacare.
I wonder what value the Unions are putting on the contracts that were negotiated. How would you come up with that value? Would it be only for the life of the contract? I suppose the contracts could be compared with contracts in other states. But how do you decide what union dues were paid for what contracts? Are the union dues being paid today for contracts previously negotiated or are they being paid for potential future contracts?
Sounds like Obamacare
"Look for the Union Label" has become "Look for the Union Lawsuit."
I am Laslo.
"Allowing some workers to get fair representation for nothing is unfair, un-American and not our Wisconsin"
Getting something for nothing is the essence of modern liberalism (i.e. free birth control anyone?, free college anyone?, free citizenship anyone?). What planet is he living on?
At least the Unions charge an apportioned fee, unlike the federal government. Still, it would be to their credit if they addressed outsourcing (e.g. environmentally unfriendly "green" technology, from recovery to reclamation), illegal aliens including Obama's Dreamers displacing citizens and legal aliens, and excessive (i.e. unassimilated and unintegrated) immigration generally. Perhaps they can address the million or so aborted American citizens who are replaced and justify a favored class of legal and illegal alien.
These retrograde obstructionists and their sought after gridlock in the political process flies in the face of progress, nay evolution!
"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
So... your go-to response is an old sexist joke. War on Women.
"Will manage to get a Dane County judge to issue an injunction preventing implementation..."
Remove to federal court.
Blogger Brando said, "How about providing benefits to members[?]"
What an idea! It's really an accounting matter. Let's say you're the chief labor negotiator for GM, and you say to the union, "Look, we can't afford those Cadillac health-care plans you demand, but we'll give you X$billion to do it on your own. And while you're at it, do the pensions, and come to think of it, all of the vacation and overtime as well. In fact, just take the keys-- you drive."
Unions are extortion rackets. This is proof of it. Unions think that the workers money is theirs.
Similar to how collectivists think that workers money is theirs and they graciously allow you to keep some of it.
"Fuck you; pay me." said the Unions.
Why have rent on a milk cow taken out of your check when you're lactose intolerent?
If Unions actually performed a useful service to their members, people would want to pay.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
It's not difficult, at all, to stream movies for free online. Even brand new ones still in theatres.
...yet people pay for Netflix. Lots of people.
People will pay for a good service even if a free option exists.
Also, see PC software and Steam. Pirating games is absurdly simple...yet Steam has rather large sales figures. Because they provide a good service on top of the software.
garage: "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
Someone keeps showing up on my doorstop with milk and demanding I pay for it even though I don't drink milk.
Conservatives are just looking out for the little guy. That's a totally believable position from. Seriously. It has NOTHING to do with weakening unions.
The unions are right; it's not their Wisconsin anymore.
I share the prevailing opinion that the unions will have to bring value to their members and then their membership will grow. My grandfather fought to be allowed to join a union, but that was then and this is now. The current generation of union leaders are mired in old ways of thinking and don't know how to provide real value anymore. Somewhere out there is a new generation that will figure it out, and union membership will rise.
Of course to some folks living in an unreal world, it is a matter of deeply held belief that unions bring value to their members, but is it true in the 21st century?
I work in an office where some employees are unionized and some are not. The union gives some benefits to its members that are not available to non-union members.
Some people at my last job joined for the dental/vision insurance benefit that came with being a member.
And although unions are supposed to represent union and non-union members equally, in practice they usually don't. They may represent a non-union member, but nominally.
garage mahal: "Conservatives are just looking out for the little guy. That's a totally believable position from. Seriously. It has NOTHING to do with weakening unions"
Liberals are just looking out for the little guy by wanting to force him/her to join a union or not be eligible for certain jobs. That's a totally believable position. Seriously. It has nothing to do with strengthening forced donations to the democrat-supporting unions.
FIFY
In garage world, forced unionization is "freedom".
Fortunately, this lawsuit will fail just like all the others because being forced to automatically donate part of your salary to the union bosses/dems (but I repeat myself) for services you do not want is not actually "freedom".
Two long time Wisconsin companies already leaving Wisconsin since Walker signed this bill. Thanks libtards. Thanks Obama!
Conservatives are just looking out for the little guy. That's a totally believable position from. Seriously. It has NOTHING to do with weakening unions.
How are unions "weakened" by this legislation? In no place in this legislation does it say workers are prohibited from joining a union.
Unions now have to work a little bit to convince people to be a part of it. I realize it was so much easier to just sit back count the money as it was forcibly taken from workers whether they wanted to be in the union or not, but now unions actually have to prove a purpose to its paying members. Oh the pain.
Like I said, its hilarious listening to liberal Democrats and union heads bitch about having to pay for something that someone else didnt earn. All of a sudden when its THEIR money, the mood changes. Liberalism at its finest.
"Also, see PC software and Steam. Pirating games is absurdly simple...yet Steam has rather large sales figures. Because they provide a good service on top of the software."
-- I don't think you can compare the two things [not being in unions vs. not pirating.]
Pirating games is illegal and unethical for most people, not being in a union is value neutral. If a game designer were to put their game up for free, I wouldn't buy it through Steam. But, I'm not going to pick their pocket by pirating the game to avoid paying for it on Steam.
Choosing not to join a union and attempting to negotiate for myself is a completely different thing; the analogy isn't sound.
Know what Garage? I'll bite.
I want to weaken unions. I want unions to wither and die, all of them, and their members to all get fired and never work another day, subsisting on meager welfare or whatever pensions they've racketeered out over the years. I want people who like unions to never enjoy life again, and all union-supported politicians to lose by staggering margins in the next election - in all elections. I want the word "union" to become so poisonous that it's replaced in the OED with something else. I want unions and their members to cease mattering.
Because unions suck, and their members are largely lazy assholes who do not a whole lot, and their leaders are fat fucking pigs who suck at the teat of the "little guy's" wallet and the taxpayer too. There, I said it. Go do something about it. Or sit there and whine about Right to Work. Either way, in the end, you're gonna lose, and lose big time. And I'll be smiling.
Fuck unions.
I want to weaken unions. I want unions to wither and die
Ah, there it is! Thanks. One honest conservative. Sometimes big government is needed to force companies to make the right choice in regards to unions in their workforce. New big government regulations keep honest companies honest!
Hundreds of Wisconsin companies publicly declared their opposition to right to work law because they said unions help their companies. Fuck 'em!
Two long time Wisconsin companies already leaving Wisconsin since Walker signed this bill. Thanks libtards. Thanks Obama!
Jelly Belly is closing their Kenosha center. They're moving it to (pro-union?) Tennessee. What's the other one, and where are they going?
You know, that argument sounds an awful lot like those argued in favor of compensated emancipation in Northern slave states during the Civil War years - that owners had to be compensated for their alienated property, or else it was an unconstitutional taking. Both sets of arguments presume ownership over the labor of others.
Garage: "Big government" isn't forcing companies to act with unions in any way, shape or form. All that we've said is that being in a union is not a protected class; you can't discriminate against someone for electing to NOT join a union [just like you can't discriminate against someone for not joining any other civic organization.]
It's really basic, and unobjectionable. Some unions do really good things, and their membership won't take a hit, I imagine. But, sadly, a lot of unions are -- like most organizations -- kind of useless.
Tennessee is a Right to Work state, I believe.
"Unknown" broke the code. Expect further hysteria as this meme spreads.
Sidenote: "Nonmembers can only be required to pay for their proportionate part of the union's proven bargaining costs."
In other words, if the problem is getting the milk for free, people CAN be compelled to pay for their part of the milk in Right to Work states. So, that argument should be ignored.
What's the other one, and where are they going?
Hoffman Construction is expanding.....in Minnesota. Hoffman is, or was, a Republican.
Garage, you missed the point again. You're quite apt at that.
The RTW law in Wisconsin won't kill unions unless unions already deserved to die. If people want to be in unions, let them. I've got no problem with that.
But I do believe unions deserve to die out. This law just removes some of their unethical protections and enables the free market to step in and show just how irrelevant and unnecessary unions are these days.
If I could pass a nationwide law forcing all union leaders and members up against a wall to be shot, I'm just enough of an asshole to do it. But I can't. So, instead, I'll let them die the slow death that RTW brings.
"I want to weaken unions. I want unions to wither and die, all of them, and their members to all get fired and never work another day, subsisting on meager welfare or whatever pensions they've racketeered out over the years. I want people who like unions to never enjoy life again, and all union-supported politicians to lose by staggering margins in the next election - in all elections. I want the word "union" to become so poisonous that it's replaced in the OED with something else. I want unions and their members to cease mattering."
Much as I don't like the way unions are functioning these days, I don't want to see all unions wither away--I want to see them accountable, pressured to reform (simply by the need to attract membership) and not given extroardinary power over workers, business, and consumers (not to mention the government). But the concept of employees choosing to be represented by an organization for collective bargaining purposes in and of itself I have no problem with. Instead, thanks to the power unions have held over the years in many workplaces and governments, they have become corrupt organizations that have unwisely hampered the very industries on which their members depend. They've become terrible for workers, consumers and business in general and this slow death they're going through won't be fixed until they have incentive to become better.
How is it unconstitutional to undo a union "right" when collective bargaining is not a constitutional right in the first place?
"Hoffman Construction is expanding.....in Minnesota."
Are they leaving Wisconsin, or just expanding in Minnesota instead of Wisconsin? Those are two different things.
Sickos
Are they leaving Wisconsin, or just expanding in Minnesota instead of Wisconsin?
Expanding
But, hey, Walker has presidential aspirations, so suck it, Wisconsin.
"Two long time Wisconsin companies already leaving Wisconsin since Walker signed this bill."
-- So... this was not exactly true, is what we've gotten after interrogating you a little.
Fun.
From Garage's link: "But the expansion would depend on being successful on competitive bids, Hoffman added."
-- In other words, if he gets better business elsewhere, he'll expand there. If Wisconsin gives him better business, he'll stay around.
It sounds like just negotiations by other means.
Two long time Wisconsin companies already leaving Wisconsin since Walker signed this bill.
Why would this be?
Ah, there it is! Thanks. One honest conservative
You want to believe this so bad that you automatically assume that anyone who believes in right to work thinks this way as well. How convenient for your worldview.
I don't have anything against unions OTHER THAN them having government backing to force employees to join them. Kyzernick has every right to his beliefs, but that doesn't mean all conservatives believe this, and that those who don't cop to it are being dishonest.
You've turned into a completely dishonest hack.
I don't have anything against unions OTHER THAN them having government backing to force employees to join them.
Nobody in Wisconsin has ever been forced to join any union, in any career field, for any job. Where do you guys get this stuff?
ICYMI: The government just stepped in and told private businesses how they must conduct their affairs. Jesus H Christ.
"Nobody in Wisconsin has ever been forced to join any union, in any career field, for any job. Where do you guys get this stuff?"
-- Then Right to Work doesn't change anything.
"ICYMI: The government just stepped in and told private businesses how they must conduct their affairs. Jesus H Christ."
-- The government does it all the time. In this case, by your own admission, the law actually changes nothing. So... uh, what's the big deal?
Bomb them until the rubble bounces.
Need a little cheese with your whine, Phil?
There's an easy answer here. Employers who wish to show a preference to non Union employees need only pay them 1 cent more per hour than the union contract employees. If a company is will to pay more for a non unionized employee than a unionized, then the non-unionized receives a greater benefit from being non-Union than union.
Alternatively if a company prefers that it's employees be unionized (and some do) they need only pay the non-Union employees what the market will bear. Provided it's more than the established state and federal minimum wage.
Nobody in Wisconsin has ever been forced to join any union, in any career field, for any job. Where do you guys get this stuff?
Nice splicing of what I said, but here's the juice: if I wanted to be an auto worker in Janesville Wisconsin, then I had to join a union. And the government sanctioned that practice, so I had no recourse.
If I have to forgo a career because I don't want to join a union, then the government is wrong to sanction the practice, and correct for protecting my right to work there without having to join the union.
What garage posts as leaving Wisconsin turns out to be just Crony Capitalism...
By the end of 2015, the Lakeville office would add at least another two salaried positions to the current two and add another 15 to 20 hourly positions to the current 10 to 12. Depending on Minnesota giving him the juicy contracts that are currently going to other competitors...
Garage-
Walker can't be responsible for every undercapitalized union in Wisconsin.
garage mahal: "Two long time Wisconsin companies already leaving Wisconsin since Walker signed this bill. Thanks libtards. Thanks Obama!"
Toyota leaves LA for Plano, TX!!
Thanks libtards! Thanks garage! Thanks Jerry Brown and CA dem legislature! Thanks obama!
If you want to play the "where are companies relocating to" game, the left isn't going to look very good by comparison.
Why, just the other day, noted "non-liberal" (ha ha) madisonfella was lecturing us the companies always move to where labor is cheaper.
So garage, are the companies you cited moving to get lower MN labor costs, or are you calling madisonfella a liar?
I'm no legal scholar but it appears to me that if the union were to prevail then taking the legal argument to it's conclusion would me repealing the Wagner Act and minimum wage laws. Minimum wage laws are definitely a taking of the employer's property rights and so is being required to bargain with a union and the inability to fire union members who strike.
The Unions must fear an exodus of members coming quickly after the law is enacted.
Re: unions in Tennessee, VW management there volunteered to recognize the UAW, because the Germans are used to working with unions. However their workers voted NO to the union. VW is lucky because the kind of labor relations the Germans are used to are illegal in the US. They are called Sweeheart Contracts here. They have no idea how adversarial US unions are.
Nobody in Wisconsin has ever been forced to join any union, in any career field, for any job.
No union in Wisconsin has ever been forced to represent anyone, in any career field, for any job.
What garage posts as leaving Wisconsin turns out to be just Crony Capitalism...
Hoffman said.....and he sees Minnesota’s proposal to increase transportation funding as offering greater business opportunities.
Time to jump on the government funded gravy train.
On Monday, Hoffman said the law will make it more difficult to gain skilled workers, which he depends on when calculating productivity in his bids.
That makes no sense - where are those skilled workers going? Especially if he is willing to pay them what they are worth.
This part of the quote: which he depends on when calculating productivity in his bids.
No, what he depends on is that he and all his competitors are paying the same fixed labor cost. Since the government is the source of the money, it makes no difference as long as everyone pays the same. Now it is a new paradigm - there might be some competitors who can save on labor costs, although Davis-Bacon determined wage rates will still be mandated.
Not mentioned is the possibility that the Dane County judiciary might finally be shamed by their constant rulings in favor of the Democrat party, which are reversed by appellate courts using basic legal and logic skills and reasoning, and deny relief in this clearly merit less, if not frivolous lawsuit.
Just kidding........
Some very interesting polling out today re: Walker vs. Clinton in Wisconsin. Scotty's in-state approval rating taking a big nosedive, too.
Looks like February, 2015 will be remembered as the high-water mark for Walker 2016.
Even though I've been predicting a Clinton-Bush cage match since 2011, I still am surprised that Jeb has the nomination all but locked up this far in advance. Each day, the GOPs vaunted "deep bench" looks more like the Peanut Gallery from the old Howdy Doody Show.
Alternatively if a company prefers that it's employees be unionized (and some do) they need only pay the non-Union employees what the market will bear.
Why not exempt any employer who wishes to continue with the laws that have been on the books for decades? Why not let employers deal with unions in any way they see fit? True freedom for the Job Creators. Nope, can't have that, for some weird fucking reason.
garage mahal said...
Why not let employers deal with unions in any way they see fit?
Breaking news. Garage Mahal advocates repeal of the Wagner Act.
Or he would if he were intellectually honest.
bu bu bu but
bbkingfish said...
Some very interesting polling out today re: Walker vs. Clinton in Wisconsin. Scotty's in-state approval rating taking a big nosedive, too.
Looks like February, 2015 will be remembered as the high-water mark for Walker 2016.
Even though I've been predicting a Clinton-Bush cage match since 2011, I still am surprised that Jeb has the nomination all but locked up this far in advance. Each day, the GOPs vaunted "deep bench" looks more like the Peanut Gallery from the old Howdy Doody Show.
3/11/15, 12:19 PM"
This is what happens when you use a funhouse mirror. Yours is a spot on description of the Democrat's lineup.
"garage mahal said...
Conservatives are just looking out for the little guy. That's a totally believable position from. Seriously. It has NOTHING to do with weakening unions."
Weakening unions? Sure. Weakening the Democratic-Union cabal? Sure again. Just like the Democrat opposition was ro maintain the cabal.
"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
Why get the milk from a cow at all, if you can weigh as much as a cow and have udder-esque manboobs to match?
Every day, brave Garage Mahal waddles down the street, in constant fear of getting milked by some non union labor.
So brave, so brave.
Sometimes big government is needed to force companies to make the right choice in regards to unions in their workforce.
The law has nothing to do with businesses. It allows workers to make that choice.
Nobody in Wisconsin has ever been forced to join any union, in any career field, for any job. Where do you guys get this stuff?
Then this law hurts nobody. Got it.
Every day, brave Garage Mahal waddles down the street, in constant fear of getting milked by some non union labor.
So brave, so brave.
Says the anonymous fake lawyer. I'm non union labor. You are non labor period, because you are an out of work loser.
And still can't post a pic of yourself, can you tough guy? I'll post one right now. Are you man enough, or can you only talk tough thru your computer?
if I wanted to be an auto worker in Janesville Wisconsin, then I had to join a union.
Common misconception but not true:
Membership in a union in the private sector in Indiana and in every other state is completely voluntary. No employee can be required to join a union, and any union member can resign his or her membership at any time for any reason, and without restriction or retaliation by the union for doing so. Pattern Makers League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985). Similarly, it is unlawful to maintain what is called a “closed shop” – that is, a requirement that a worker join a union in order for an employer to hire her in the first place. 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(3) and (b)(2).
Another common misconception is that unions only have to represent their paying members. That is also untrue; they are required by law to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, even if that worker refuse to pay anything for the services provided.
A private sector union operates under a legally enforceable "duty of fair representation," that is, the union must “fairly and equitably…represent all employees..., union and nonunion.” International Assn. of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 761 (1961). This means a union cannot discriminate or act arbitrarily toward any employee due to the nature of his relationship with the union, and all employees are equally entitled to the union’s fair and vigorous representation. All members and non-members must receive the fruits of the union’s bargaining – wages, benefits and all other rights and protections – and enjoy full access to the grievance and arbitration process that is established to redress adverse or improper actions by the employer. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(2); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 204 (1944); Bowman v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 744 F. 2d 1207, 1213-14 (6th Cir. 1984). This right to full and fair individual treatment by the union is legally enforceable in court and before the NLRB. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S.171 (1967); Plumbers Local 32 v. NLRB, 50 F. 3d 29, 31-32 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 974 (1995).
http://in.aflcio.org/statefed/?action=article&articleid=6beb1f5e-53a4-4928-bfbc-51685c44a97e
Brando said...
Am I missing something? Why not change the law so that non-union workers don't get represented by unions?
3/11/15, 7:57 AM
This is an interesting question. Non-members would still benefit from negotiated improvements in working conditions and possibly wages. The possibility of at will termination and the grievance process (I'm probably not using the right terminology here) is one example of a question a non-member would have to contemplate, though. Is that enough to get some people to join who wouldn't otherwise?
The Unions argument is nothing more than saying, "I repainted your house in bright pink without you requesting it. It is good for you. If you don't pay me for this undesired service, you have committed a taking."
People who don't pay union dues don't want union representation. The taking is when the union takes the workers' dues without permission. Up is down, down is up with these guys.
The law has nothing to do with businesses
If that is true then why did over 400 different Wisconsin companies testify against the bill, saying it will most likely increase their cost of doing business?
Are they all just libtard lefty liars who hate Scott Walker?
Am I missing something? Why not change the law so that non-union workers don't get represented by unions?
Because that would pose a lot of problems for employers. Problems that unions take care of for employers. I wholeheartedly endorse workers getting fucked in the ass if they too stupid to be represented by the union.
Why not exempt any employer who wishes to continue with the laws that have been on the books for decades? Why not let employers deal with unions in any way they see fit? True freedom for the Job Creators. Nope, can't have that, for some weird fucking reason.
Assuming, for a minute, that any employer with brains would WANT to do this: why does the employer get the choice of doing this? Why should an employee not only work for the company, but have the company force him (once hired) to join the union? And please, don't say they don't force them, because that's exactly what you're advocating.
madisonfella,
If that's the case, then this law does nothing, and there is no reason for anyone to whine about it.
Am I missing something? Why not change the law so that non-union workers don't get represented by unions?
Yes you are. Federal law requires equal treatment of all employees in a bargaining unit. So the state of Wisconsin cannot change that part of the law.
If that is true then why did over 400 different Wisconsin companies testify against the bill, saying it will most likely increase their cost of doing business?
Ask the businesses.
Allowing workers to decide to be unionized is not a COMPANY'S choice.
I would also love to see the data to bolster their claim.
The ONLY way their claim makes sense is if unions and companies worked together to LOWER wages (note removing unions from the equation saved school districts a lot of money).
If unions are keeping wages low, then this law is a Godsend to workers and unions and companies should be sued for collusion to lower wages.
Yes you are. Federal law requires equal treatment of all employees in a bargaining unit.
A bargaining unit isn't all employees. It's a group of employees represented by a single union.
Another common misconception is that unions only have to represent their paying members. That is also untrue; they are required by law to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, even if that worker refuse to pay anything for the services provided.
Patently false. My company has union and non-union employees. The union has nothing to do with non-union (in fact, our deal is always better) whatsoever.
The bargaining unit is not all employees, which is why companies can have non union AND union employees.
if I wanted to be an auto worker in Janesville Wisconsin, then I had to join a union.
Common misconception but not true:
True, you didn't have to join a union.
You just had to pay dues regardless.
Much better.
If I could pass a nationwide law forcing all union leaders and members up against a wall to be shot, I'm just enough of an asshole to do it. But I can't. So, instead, I'll let them die the slow death that RTW brings
Okay Althouse, if you get bent all out of shape when the New York times doesn't delete a post that advocates killing someone, what are you going to do about this?
Quote from the AFL-CIO site:
No. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union. Unions and employers may only negotiate contract provisions requiring nonmembers to pay their fair share of the union’s costs in representing them.
If I could pass a nationwide law forcing all union leaders and members up against a wall to be shot, I'm just enough of an asshole to do it. But I can't. So, instead, I'll let them die the slow death that RTW brings
Okay Althouse, if you get bent all out of shape when the New York times doesn't delete a post that advocates killing someone, what are you going to do about this?
He said he couldn't do it. And didn't name a specific person.
What exactly is the problem?
Patently false
You know, before you accuse me of being wrong, you should do a little basic research.
Patently false
You know, before you accuse me of being wrong, you should do a little basic research.
I did.
Patently false was nice when the correct answer is bullshit.
He said he couldn't do it.
No, he said he couldn't get the law passed. He bragged that he was enough of an asshole to pull the trigger.
As for not naming a person, advocating mass execution 14.6 million people (more than Hitler had killed in his death camps) is much worse than targeting an individual.
No, he said he couldn't get the law passed.
...which means he can't do it. It's no different than me saying "Man, I'd fuck Kate Upton until she cannot walk properly" into a threat of violence or impregnation upon her.
He bragged that he was enough of an asshole to pull the trigger.
If I had the chance to fuck Kate Upton, I would do so.
There's that whole "not being able to" issue.
As for not naming a person, advocating mass execution 14.6 million people (more than Hitler had killed in his death camps) is much worse than targeting an individual.
*snicker*
You're...serious?
Really?
Yes, we have a poster here advocating mass genocide. Truly.
Ann should get right on this.
"Guy who said he cannot do something advocates something he cannot do" is a crime against humanity.
The only "unconsitutional taking of private property" is the demand that individuals give part of their pay to a union they want no part of.
If the unions want to forfeit their power of being the sole representative of the workers, and allow non-union workers to negotiate separately with the company, they should be free to do so.
OTOH, two years after they do that, there will be no unions, because every competent employee, most certainly every employee in the 51%+ percentile, is better of negotiating for themselves, rather than getting stuck with the deal that includes the incompetent.
If someone walks up to my car when I'm stopped in traffic and proceeds to wiope down the windshield am I obligated to pay him, wven if I've told him to stay away?
Thing is, unions ARE permitted to negotiate members-only contracts. It just isn't beneficial to them to do so because the deal is unlikely to be great because non-union members can just join the union and take the deal if it is dramatically better than the non-union deal.
My company has union and non-union employees. The union has nothing to do with non-union (in fact, our deal is always better) whatsoever.
The bargaining unit is not all employees, which is why companies can have non union AND union employees.
In a RTW state, you can be both in the bargaining unit and not pay dues or be in the union. But the union still has to represent you (they don’t have to do it well, though).
There are also employees who are not part of the bargaining unit (management/HR/etc) who are not represented.
Problems that unions take care of for employers.
What on earth problems do unions take care of for employers?? In my experience, they make problems more than anything else.
In a RTW state, you can be both in the bargaining unit and not pay dues or be in the union. But the union still has to represent you (they don’t have to do it well, though).
Not necessarily, no. They are quite able to negotiate members-only contracts.
They opt not to do so and that is their issue.
garage mahal said...
Hundreds of Wisconsin companies publicly declared their opposition to right to work law because they said unions help their companies.
Hundreds of Wisconsin companies obeyed the Union thugs who threatened to destroy their businesses, and "declared their opposition" to freeing their employees from union bondage.
FIFY
" I'm non union labor. " 3/11/15, 1:02 PM
"I wholeheartedly endorse workers getting fucked in the ass if they too stupid to be represented by the union." 3/11/15, 1:10 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Bitchtits Mahal!
Don't worry Shitty-Jeans, labor laws won't affect you one way or the other. Pulling your pud all day in the basement has its own safety hazards.
Freder, I'm sure you will be denouncing Garage's advocating for the sodomizing of millions and millions of workers, after your outrage about Althouse not deleting the "against the wall and shot" posting, right?
Fen had something to say about this.
Crappy Pants has real problems with employment and metaphors
madisonfella said...
if I wanted to be an auto worker in Janesville Wisconsin, then I had to join a union.
Common misconception but not true:
Technically false, but practically true: You have to pay money to the union, and the unions used that money to advance their political agenda. You could not have that job without financially supporting the union. Which is evil, and wrong.
Another common misconception is that unions only have to represent their paying members. That is also untrue; they are required by law to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, even if that worker refuse to pay anything for the services provided.
All the union would have to do is let the non-union people be part of their won "bargaining unit". The unions don't do that, because if they did, all the competent people would leave the unit in order to cut a better deal.
I didn't realize that pointing out your bovine characteristics would get you so snippy, Bitchtits.
Why don't you Moooooooooooove on to another topic?
You could not have that job without financially supporting the union.
Before Citizens United that was against federal law. It's why I wouldn't work for the Koch Brothers. Don't like who they support off of your labor? DON'T WORK FOR THEM.
"This is an interesting question. Non-members would still benefit from negotiated improvements in working conditions and possibly wages. The possibility of at will termination and the grievance process (I'm probably not using the right terminology here) is one example of a question a non-member would have to contemplate, though. Is that enough to get some people to join who wouldn't otherwise?"
When I went through orientation at my job, the union rep came in to make their pitch and one of the benefits of joining the union was they represent you in grievance processes (main reason I didn't join is because it would be a conflict of interest if I represented our agency against the union). I could see that being a selling point--a trained advocate who will help you fight for your rights at the workplace, and of course for employers that don't have good benefits the union could also offer additional benefits for members (maybe life insurance, or an unemployment payout). I'd have no problem with that--entirely voluntary, and gives workers leverage with employers where in some industries they have very little.
My problem is with "closed shop" and "exclusive representative" rules that force employees to be represented by such organizations, which then have little incentive to make it worthwhile (after all, replacing a union, even where the membership is unhappy with it, is no easy process). And their track record in some industries has been abysmal.
I agree with garage. Right to Work does infringe on freedom of association because it does outlaw closed shops.
The only solution to this problem is a full repeal of the Wagner Act. If Unions joined together to fight the repeal of the Wagner Act, it would happen immediately, especially in the political makeup of this congress. I'm pretty sure the current makeup of the Supreme Court would also give its blessing.
Let's do it, garage!
Garage?
Garage?
Garage?
Where'd you go....
If that's the case, then this law does nothing,
It is the case, and the law absolutely does something: It provides a "right to freeload" for those workers who decide to not pay for the good and services the union is required by law to provide them.
My problem is with "closed shop"
"Closed shops" have been illegal in the United States since 1947.
""Closed shops" have been illegal in the United States since 1947."
Maybe I'm not using the correct terminology, but unions today in half the states can negotiate contracts with employers that require all employees to be a member of that union. That's what I'm referring to.
"I don't have anything against unions OTHER THAN them having government backing to force employees to join them. Kyzernick has every right to his beliefs, but that doesn't mean all conservatives believe this, and that those who don't cop to it are being dishonest."
I have the same sentiment, except that I would also add OTHER THAN the NLRB broadly interpreting Section 7 into ridiculous contortions, such as not allowing an employer to police negative attacks on social media by its own employees using its own logo. Or not allowing blanket prohibitions on videography by employees at work. Or not even allowing the above policies with a caveat that union-related activity is excluded. The NLRB has crossed the line into absurdity.
In the end though, I think reasonable employment laws are a much better solution than any legal protections for union activities. Even the playing field for all companies and avoid ridiculous situations in some industries that can no longer compete with foreign companies.
madisonfella said...
If that is true then why did over 400 different Wisconsin companies testify against the bill, saying it will most likely increase their cost of doing business?
Those companies consist almost entirely of construction contractors. They benefit from artificially inflated wages.
Wisconsin Contractor Coalition Launched
"300-Plus Members Oppose So-Called Right-to-Work Legislation"
Who they are:
http://www.wisconsincontractorcoalition.com/supporters/
Those companies consist almost entirely of construction contractors. They benefit from artificially inflated wages.
So the whole "400 employers" thing was pure dishonesty on the part of Garage? If he weren't such a dishonest hack, he would have mentioned this pretty salient piece of info.
They benefit from artificially inflated wages.
How so?
Was it "artificially inflated wages" Scott Walker was referring to when he said that "private-sector unions are my partner in economic development"? If not, then what do you suppose he meant by that statement?
So the whole "400 employers" thing was pure dishonesty on the part of Garage?
Not dishonesty rather a simple mistake. Actual number of companies who joined the coalition against RTW is 392. It was a mistake to say "over 400".
(And if "simple mistake" = "pure dishonesty" then you are being purely dishonest in your claim that Garage said such "400" companies)
Probably the main reason why more unions don't organize on a members-only basis is that then they can't compel the employer to bargain with them if they don't want to (see here for example). Of course this wouldn't bother Garage, who is all about companies' freedom of choice, but you can see where the unions might regard it as a disadvantage.
So most of the almost 400 companies are constructions companies that benefit by prevailing wage, i.e., Davis-Bacon government work. That's like government unions being against right to work.
The higher the unit of labor at the union level, the higher everything above it, supervisors, engineers, consultants, community PR bullshitters and all the rest.
When did liberals become so concerned about freeloading?
P.S. Why do you think infrastructure in the U.S. is so expensive?
By the end of Walker's term it's going to be Curious George and Meade left supporting him.....with their faded "Thank God for Scott Walker" T-shirts. And Gusty Winds still cranking out propaganda on the internet at 0.25/post.
"I don't have anything against unions OTHER THAN them having government backing to force employees to join them."
But keep in mind that federal labor laws require that an employer negotiate in good faith with a recognized union, even if it doesn't wish to do so: that is, there's more coercion involved than just having to pay a union to "represent you" if you work for a union company.
Of course, that's federal law, and RTW can't touch it. But perhaps a day will come when at least some of that 1930s federal labor legislation is repealed or modified?
The bargaining unit is not all employees, which is why companies can have non union AND union employees.
No, but a bargaining unit consists of all employees with "common interests", whether or not they are members of the union.
The level of ignorance on this thread in particular is astounding. A good number of you are just spouting nonsense which demonstrates you have not the slightest idea how labor law with respect to unions works. No wonder management can convince you all how evil unions are.
Get back to chewing your cud and stop whining about how your misguided recall attempt ended up crushing your thuggish unions, Bitchtits.
It's starting to get kind of sad.
Recall Elections have consequences, tubby.
I don't have anything against unions OTHER THAN them having government backing to force employees to join them.
And I don't have anything against corporations, OTHER THAN them having government backing to limit their shareholders' liability.
But keep in mind that federal labor laws require that an employer negotiate in good faith with a recognized union, even if it doesn't wish to do so: that is, there's more coercion involved than just having to pay a union to "represent you" if you work for a union company.
Keep in mind that federal labor laws also prohibit wildcat and secondary strikes. How is that fair?
Jelly Belly isn't really a "long time" Wisconsin company. I went to their grand opening extravaganza in 2001....
No, but a bargaining unit consists of all employees with "common interests", whether or not they are members of the union.
Except being union and non-union clearly demonstrate that they don't have common interests. If they did, they'd ALL be union.
Not even a difficult case to make.
Unions CAN negotiate members only deals. They don't want to do so. So be it.
The level of ignorance on this thread in particular is astounding. A good number of you are just spouting nonsense which demonstrates you have not the slightest idea how labor law with respect to unions works. No wonder management can convince you all how evil unions are.
You're the one who hasn't been accurate yet.
Just sayin'.
Except being union and non-union clearly demonstrate that they don't have common interests.
"Common interests" in this context doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Just because one machine operator doesn't like broccoli while the guy working the machine next to him loves it, doesn't mean they don't have "common interests" in the context of whether or not they are in the same bargaining unit.
At some point, suing based on an argument that has repeatedly been rejected by the court probably ought to merit sanctions.
"Common interests" in this context doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.
Unions do not fight for benefits for non-union workers. They fight against benefits for non-union workers. They fight against *jobs* for non-union workers.
Non-union workers do not have a common interest with union workers. Non-union workers have a common interest with other non-union workers: destroying unions.
Unions CAN negotiate members only deals.
Only if they represent a minority of the employees. Once a union wins a majority of the employees, they are the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit. While an employer could negotiate a contract with a minority union, it doesn't have to. why would it want to?
Only if they represent a minority of the employees. Once a union wins a majority of the employees, they are the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit.
Being the exclusive representative of all the workers does not obligate them to request the same benefits for all workers.
Being the exclusive representative of all the workers does not obligate them to request the same benefits for all workers.
I guess you are correct, but what would be the benefit to the employer of such an arrangement? I can't think of any.
So most of the almost 400 companies are constructions companies that benefit by prevailing wage, i.e., Davis-Bacon government work.
The recently passed law has nothing at all to do with "prevailing wage" As someone else just pointed out, lots of misinformation out there from anti-union crowd.
And again, I have to ask: What did Scott Walker mean when he said "private-sector unions are my partner in economic development"? If they are truly only an extortion racket whose members should be put up against the wall and shot, then why would the Governor say such a thing?
I guess you are correct, but what would be the benefit to the employer of such an arrangement? I can't think of any.
There isn't one. Which is why unions negotiate for "all" employees.
Not because they want to. But because the other options aren't better.
They are free to NOT negotiate for non-union employees.
And again, I have to ask: What did Scott Walker mean when he said "private-sector unions are my partner in economic development"? If they are truly only an extortion racket whose members should be put up against the wall and shot, then why would the Governor say such a thing?
He was being nice.
Private unions aren't evil. Government decrees giving them undeserved power is.
They are free to NOT negotiate for non-union employees.
How can they not negotiate for non-union employees if they are the exclusive representative of all employees. I guess if you weren't in the union, your employer could compensate you without bothering to tell you how much you are being paid or what your benefits are. It would be a pretty weird arrangement though.
madisonfella said...
If that's the case, then this law does nothing,
It is the case, and the law absolutely does something: It provides a "right to freeload" for those workers who decide to not pay for the good and services the union is required by law to provide them.
The union is "required by law" - that they wrote. That's the case here in IL. And that's their excuse.
We have the right to charge a "fair share" fee because we're required by law to include them in our bargaining unit" It's the LAW. But they wrote the LAW to read that way.
I don't want to be part of the lowest common denominator. I can negotiate my own pay and "work rules". I DO want incentives to do better, to get promotions, to get raises. I DON'T want work rules that prohibit my attempts to do better, to get promoted, to get raises.
garage mahal said...
You could not have that job without financially supporting the union.
Before Citizens United that was against federal law. It's why I wouldn't work for the Koch Brothers. Don't like who they support off of your labor? DON'T WORK FOR THEM.
Wow, garage, what world do you live in? In this one, in non Right to Work states you can be forced to pay money to a union in order to hold a job. I know, because I was once in that situation.
The union didn't create the job, didn't fund the job, didn't do anything to make the job better for me, all they did was steal my money, with the gov't holding the gun on me.
And only an idiot or a liar claims to believe that those fees weren't used for political purposes.
Garage may be referring to the long time Wisconsin political campaign that is packing up for a ten year move to DC.
Thankfully, that usually sends back home many public works to the State. Maybe a High Speed train run from Madison to Simi Valley, California with tour packages of the Ronald Reagan Library.
I don't want to be part of the lowest common denominator. I can negotiate my own pay and "work rules".
Really? You think you can get a job with GE or 3M and you can effectively negotiate your own pay and work rules.
kimsch at his/her first day of work at HR filling out paperwork:
"Wait a second, it says here I only get two weeks of vacation, I want three, I'll just pencil that in."
"What? This health insurance doesn't seem to good, offer me something better."
"Oh come on now, a non-compete clause! There is no way I am signing this."
"My hours are 9:00 to 5:00?! No way, I need to work 8:30 to 4:30.
HR:
"You can either agree to everything or go home. This is non-negotiable."
kimsch:
"Hmm, but I thought I could negotiate my own pay and "work rules".
HR:
Falls on the floor and pees her pants because she is laughing so hard.
Freder: "Really? You think you can get a job with GE or 3M and you can effectively negotiate.....blah blah blah"
Yes.
You can.
I know this because I did precisely that and with one of the 2 companies you mentioned. It worked out quite well for me.
I was able to do this twice more after promotions.
Then again, if you deliver enough value you would be surprised what you can negotiate, both formally and informally.
I can see from freders post that the fundamental mistake he makes is the idea that you negotiate benefits/perks/mods with HR.
Never negotiate with HR. They are typically flunkies who are viewed as a necessary and unavoidable cost and not as value creators. They have very little power and are almost never authorized to modify any benefit maximums.
Uh Freder,
Yes I can. I have done. Easily.
In more than one job. I've also negotiated changes to my "work rules" when I needed to. Successfully.
I know this because I did precisely that and with one of the 2 companies you mentioned. It worked out quite well for me.
Either you were negotiating for an executive position or you are full of shit (I suspect it was the latter). While you might be able to negotiate a starting position and salary (within a narrow range), there are very few (if any) large companies out there that are going to vary the other terms of employment for the vast majority of positions.
I'll believe you when you give me the details (i.e., which company, exactly what you negotiated, etc.). If you claim you can't disclose that, well then you are full of shit. Because, if you were so skillful at negotiating, why on earth did you sign a non-disclosure agreement. You should be shouting your success to the world:
" I got a job with GE as an entry level engineer. Through my cunning I convinced them to pay me $150,000, with six weeks of vacation, and pension and a Cadillac health care plan that is usually only offered to senior executives."
Freder: Either you were negotiating for an executive position or you are full of shit (I suspect it was the latter)."
You have to say that, or admit you are an idiot.
Since the latter is an impossibility you will stick with your axiomatic ignorance.
Freder: "While you might be able to negotiate a starting position and salary (within a narrow range), there are very few (if any) large companies out there that are going to vary the other terms of employment for the vast majority of positions."
I did negotiate my starting position and salary.
It was not an executive band position.
And I did negotiate some very favorable terms of employment beyond salary position/salary.
Which is why I responded to your moronic post.
Freder: "I'll believe you when you give me the details (i.e., which company, exactly what you negotiated, etc.)."
LOL
Yeah, sure I'll cough that info right up to you! And you'll verify it......how? Too funny.
Now, I am willing to consider a 3rd party intermediary. Perhaps Meade.
Freder: " I got a job with GE as an entry level engineer. Through my cunning I convinced them to pay me $150,000, with six weeks of vacation, and pension and a Cadillac health care plan that is usually only offered to senior executives."
Ah yes.
When your "insight" has been exposed as "incomplete", you move seamlessly to an absurd assertion/strawman as if that is the position I forwarded.
It's pretty clear someone here is full of s***, and it isn't me.
And btw, anyone who has worked at GE knows perfectly well that you don't walk into large salaries (below executive band).
You "get ahead" by delivering and receiving healthy amounts of stock option awards.
That's the GE way.
Old GE joke: What's the best thing about working at GE? You get to wear sweat pants when you come in to work on the weekends.
Freder, what have you done for your shareholders today?
And one more thing: If you are an entry level engineer or anything else, GE is a great place to start since there are few companies that will invest as much capital in their individual employees development.
They will, however, ask for much in return.
Thems the rules baby.
I guess you are correct, but what would be the benefit to the employer of such an arrangement? I can't think of any.
Seriously?
You don't see why an employer would consider "we demand better pay for 60% of your factory workers" to be more attractive than "we demand better pay for 100% of your factory workers"?
There are some lies promoted by liberals on this site. The union is compelled to negotiate for non-union workers if it has "exclusive representation" for all workers. But don't forget that it's union's choice to declare itself an "exclusive representative". The reason unions do that is obvious, they don't want the non-Union workers to have the right to negotiate for themselves. In other words, unions declare themselves a monopoly, and then require non-Union workers to pay them.
It just ain't fair-all this "union-busting"-that is. But taxpayers have decided that financing union gains for taxpayer pains will continue no more.
Drago said...
Then again, if you deliver enough value you would be surprised what you can negotiate, both formally and informally.
Precisely.
HR:
"You can either agree to everything or go home. This is non-negotiable."
I don't know where you work, but every time I've been interviewed it's been by a division head or the company owner/s. HR only shows up with the paperwork.
Rusty: "I don't know where you work, but every time I've been interviewed it's been by a division head or the company owner/s. HR only shows up with the paperwork."
Exactly!
You can only "negotiate" with an individual (at whatever level in the organization) who has the authority to negotiate such items.
That is never HR.
How can they not negotiate for non-union employees if they are the exclusive representative of all employees. I guess if you weren't in the union, your employer could compensate you without bothering to tell you how much you are being paid or what your benefits are. It would be a pretty weird arrangement though.
Mine notifies me and I'm not in a union.
You don't see why an employer would consider "we demand better pay for 60% of your factory workers" to be more attractive than "we demand better pay for 100% of your factory workers"?
Would greatly help the union too since the 40% getting the "bad" deal would join the union to get the better deal...if it is actually better.
In more than one job. I've also negotiated changes to my "work rules" when I needed to. Successfully.
That's pretty routine today. At one job instead of overtime pay I negotiated time off at the overtime rate-I was single. So I managed to get the equivalent of five weeks vacation.
If you're good at your job management will work with you within reason.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा