Posted on 09/22/2006 12:38:08 PM PDT by John Jorsett
Although their clout has declined markedly over the past 30 years, unions remain a major influence in the lives of millions of Americans. One in eight Americans belongs to a union, and in 28 states workers can lose their jobs if they do not become a union member. Even in firms with voluntary membership, unions represent both unionized and non-unionized employees at the bargaining table, meaning it often makes sense for workers to join in order to have a say in the entity that negotiates their wages and workplace conditions. When workers join a union, they get more than collectively negotiated terms of employment, however. They also get a leadership that pursues its own priorities outside of negotiating employment conditions, priorities which may or may not reflect union members’ wishes. For all their influence in the workplace, it is not clear whether unions actually represent their members’ values. While it is true that union members elect their leaders, union leaders appear to pursue an agenda disconnected from the concerns of their members. One way to test if unions represent their members’ priorities would be to give workers the option to choose whether or not to support a project backed by their union. If support remained at the same level, it would indicate that the union leadership’s priorities matched those of the members. Decreased support would demonstrate that the unions’ priorities do not reflect their members’ wishes. Just such an experiment has taken place over the last decade. Many unions are heavily involved in political activism, spending their members’ mandatory dues to elect candidates favored by the union leadership. However, several states have passed “paycheck protection” laws that require unions to obtain written permission from their members before they can spend membership dues on political causes. In these states, the union’s political activism becomes essentially voluntary for its members. A detailed examination of union spending in states in which political donations are voluntary reveals that union leaders choose to spend far more on politics than their members would prefer. In particular: Many union leaders are pursuing an agenda that their members do not support. This fact suggests that America’s workers would be well served by giving them greater freedom in deciding whether or not to belong to a union, and union members should be given greater sway over how their dues are spent by their leaders.
More money for less work. I believe that has been the union way for some time. Just ask all the steel workers, oh yeah, I forgot, there aren't any.
"Paycheck protection legislation has a clear negative effect on public sector union contributions to candidates for state legislative offices"
I wonder what effect it has on private sector union contributions.
Nailed It!
Any union that does business with state, local or federal governments, police or fire, teachers, etc. should be prohibited by law from engaging in political activities, donations, or endorsements. And that's my opinion.
As a former union member myself I can tell you what my biggest problems with unions are.
First would be union involvement in politics. Unions need to mind their own business and stop taking money from members to support politicians the members may not support.
Second is scale based pay. I think people should be paid based on merit. There's nothing more irritating that struggling with a project because the guy watching you struggle "doesn't get paid for THAT job".
Anyone remember the California Grocery Store strike? Union leaders, who make $300,000+ a year, had these people almost destitute (while the leadership didn't miss a single paycheck), and ended up with a contract that was worse than the one originally proposed by Management.
Yeah, I want these guys on my side.
I believe it is perfectly reasonable for unions to endorse individual candidates based on their positions and voting record.
What union memebers want? Well, I want the security to know I won't get fired for turnin in a legitamate safety violation. I want the security I won't lose my job because the bosses dumbass brother-in-law needs a job and can't get one because he's a dumbass. I want the security to say no to mowing the bosses lawn, building him a deck or watching his pets when he's on vacation with the idea I won't lose my job. Those are the ones that get promoted to supervision and that's fine with me. I know I'm in the minority here and I will get flamed but there are two sides to every coin. But I know YOU won't see it.
Yeah, but all the steel workers that are left, all zero of them? They're making $45 an hour.
So, y'know, there's that.
Parity isn't enough. There should be a small percentage PENALTY for sucking the public teat. Private sector workers are evidently worth what they're making because their employers stay in business, and they can be fired if not.
No such regulating action exists for gubmint "workers", plus there needs to be a correction for the fact they're living off the labors of the productive sector of society, therefore they should work at a slight discount, say 7-10%.
You won't get flamed from me because I recognize the legitimate values in unions. I have issues with unions but only legitimate ones.
Is that like a Democrat who is not a racist?
I work in the private sector, and when I worked for someone else, I have to tell you, not one of them ever asked me to do anything like that. I realize it does happen, but if you apply probabilities to the outcome, you're probably worse off with the union bosses than the regular kind.
That is one of the strangest posts I've read all week.
I wanted all those things too, so I went to college.
There's merit to some of your argument, but unions take it way beyond that. They don't want dumbass union members fired for being dumbasses. They want pay based on scale, not merit. They want inflexible work rules so that, for example, a drywaller doesn't sweep up his own dust, he has to wait for a janitor. They want to be assured jobs regardless of need.
To each their own. Where I work is nothing like I see posted here. If you see someone in a different craft struggling with something, you are supposed to help that person. That is the Christian way, the company way and the union way. It is a team effort. As a job steward I get slammed for being too company. But I try to look out for the vulnerable worker and the companies best interest both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.