Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 931475" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>The law does NOT require unions to represent someone who doesn't join now, UNLESS unions ask for "sole representative" status, via an election and subsequent certification. If they're willing to forego that "sole (or "exclusive") representative" status, they can just represent their members. Note the recent temporary "decertification" of the NFL Players Assoc., by way of example.</p><p></p><p>Are unions likely to go that route? Think we all know the answer to that one! They apparently feel that they can't continue to exist without being able to coerce everyone in the workplace into their "bargaining" domain.</p><p></p><p>Because of that, I always get a kick out of unionists talking about "freeloaders", because in non-RTW situations, unions would appear to be the biggest freeloaders of them all. They "freeload" outrageously on those who wouldn't choose to contribute to the union OR EVEN BE "REPRESENTED" by them if they had a choice. Think the "go-getters" don't feel held-back by being compensated at the level of the mean? Think they want "representation" that limits the compensation they could earn based on their MERITS?</p><p></p><p>Anyway, don't blame "the law", or the "RTW" people for the "representation" situation; the unions themselves have demanded it and insisted that it be maintained. And, in truth, I believe such labor lights as Samuel G considered that legal exclusive representation status was a condition that would corrupt the labor movement, in that it would create organizations of "unions" that are anything but.</p><p></p><p>Make no mistake; if unions really wanted to just represent their members, they could choose to do so in not much more than a New York minute. But the key word there is "choose". Won't happen. Unions today seem to think that they can't function on a voluntary membership basis....and that's a pity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 931475, member: 16651"] The law does NOT require unions to represent someone who doesn't join now, UNLESS unions ask for "sole representative" status, via an election and subsequent certification. If they're willing to forego that "sole (or "exclusive") representative" status, they can just represent their members. Note the recent temporary "decertification" of the NFL Players Assoc., by way of example. Are unions likely to go that route? Think we all know the answer to that one! They apparently feel that they can't continue to exist without being able to coerce everyone in the workplace into their "bargaining" domain. Because of that, I always get a kick out of unionists talking about "freeloaders", because in non-RTW situations, unions would appear to be the biggest freeloaders of them all. They "freeload" outrageously on those who wouldn't choose to contribute to the union OR EVEN BE "REPRESENTED" by them if they had a choice. Think the "go-getters" don't feel held-back by being compensated at the level of the mean? Think they want "representation" that limits the compensation they could earn based on their MERITS? Anyway, don't blame "the law", or the "RTW" people for the "representation" situation; the unions themselves have demanded it and insisted that it be maintained. And, in truth, I believe such labor lights as Samuel G considered that legal exclusive representation status was a condition that would corrupt the labor movement, in that it would create organizations of "unions" that are anything but. Make no mistake; if unions really wanted to just represent their members, they could choose to do so in not much more than a New York minute. But the key word there is "choose". Won't happen. Unions today seem to think that they can't function on a voluntary membership basis....and that's a pity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana
Top