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: 934959" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>Dark_Team;</p><p></p><p>As I mentioned in another post the N.friend.L. Players Association went that route just a few short months ago; they "decertified", and bargained as a non-certified association of MEMBERS only, primarily in hopes of pursuing anti-trust issues against the owners. There are also several casts of well-known television shows who have bargained that way as well (Seinfeld and Friends, I believe, to name a couple). Fact is, there's nothing at all unusual about it; it's as basic as hiring a lawyer - or anyone else, for that matter - to represent you. And remember BASIC labor law protects any group that acts in a "concerted" (not individual) fashion.</p><p></p><p>Why don't unions use it? Again, greed. You see, they would lose certain forms of legal support if they went that route. For one, companies wouldn't HAVE to negotiate with them (although the "concerted" action thing would apply, meaning that union members couldn't be arbitrarily fired for their efforts); they would have to use their natural ECONOMIC power to achieve what they wanted to achieve. And they would subject themselves (I'm "iffy" here, so don't hold me to this!) certain legal problems as well...for example, being held liable for statements and actions that they can now usually skate away with.</p><p></p><p>But the primary reason they don't go that route - and this is one I've already mentioned as well - is the COMPETITION! If unions don't have the right to "represent" ALL the workers, then that means that workers who choose OTHER representation, or no representation at all, can do so. And who do you think those would be? The weaker, less-valued by management workers who (with good reason!) seek the union's protection? Or the real industrious go-getters, who, being highly valued by management, would be held-back if they settled for "union" wages? THEY - the industrious workers - would see their lot improved, while the weaker workers would find a rough row to hoe. What would they (the weaker workers) do? Go on strike? Not holding a labor monopoly, they'd be replaced in no time flat....or at least that's the way unions feel about it today.</p><p></p><p>The only alternatives, of course, are either "compulsion" (the only path on which the unions seem to feel they can exist today), or the path that the original labor pioneer Samuel G saw as best for "organized" labor...one in which the unions DEMONSTRATED the benefits of membership to workers in order to ATTRACT them rather than seeking laws that FORCED them to belong.</p><p></p><p>Like I said earlier, the unions get much more out of the non-members than the non-members get out of the union. And the proof is in the pudding. In the "RTW" states, as you've seemed to notice, they still aren't taking that route. While there are a few, it's a very, VERY small number that have chosen to drop "exclusive representation" status. They just don't have the guts to try to exist on the basis of their ability to attract members by virture of benefits they have to offer alone.</p><p></p><p>One of the consequences, however, is that unions are ALWAYS going to face criticism about limiting peoples choices, and rightfully so. Remember, unionism isn't just about raising the level of the "low", but also of bringing down the level of the "high". There is no such thing as a "free lunch"; someone has to pay. In the case of unionism, it's those who would be doing better (and there are many of them; that's a primary reason why "union" penetration of the workforce is at such an abysmal level today) without the union, and are being held-back by forced representation who are paying the price. </p><p></p><p>I questioned earlier as to just when the Indiana UPSers got to to vote on whether they wanted to be union members or not. Maybe they once had that choice...although I doubt even that. If they did, it was back in the fifties....and I'm fairly certain that if they DID have a choice a half a century ago, there probably aren't any of them around who cast a ballot back then who are still employed today. And don't you find that a bit strange...that people aren't able to even express a CHOICE as to whether to go "union" or not during their ENTIRE working career? And consider that in light of the Teamsters recent national election in which only 17.6% or so of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP cared enough about the union bureaucracy to even vote. Don't you think that reflects a rather "dictatorial" situation?</p><p></p><p>In spite of assertions by bozos like "crowbar" there, the Teamsters haven't been a part of UPS "for over 100 years"; they were actually invited in by Casey in the 1920's. And I'm not sure the employees had any type of vote (this is before the NLRA, of course) on the matter even back then. That said, I'm not AGAINST the Teamsters being at UPS, nor am I pushing strongly for them to drop "exclusive" status; I'm well aware that, without such status, at a highly competitive place like UPS, the union would be gone faster than a dog's fart in the breeze. Heck, in terms of the total number of employees, actual Teamster members are already less than half of the company's workforce today. But I also don't think the unions ought to be griping about "freeloaders", since they know damned well that, if left to their OWN devices and allowed to make their OWN choices, the labor alternative they represented would make the union superfluous.</p><p></p><p>Unions may gripe about spending the money on representing non-members...but they'll continue spending it. But it won't be because they're interested in protecting the rights of those non-members or any other such pie-in-the-sky stuff, but rather for the simple matter of simple self-preservation and institutional greed. Despite that, however, I'm fairly sure you're going to see even more examples - even in "non-RTW states - along the lines of the recent Manitowoc Crane strike and subsequent settlement; i.e. - the unions will no longer be able to force compulsory dues from those who choose not to be members. After all, there's no law that says employers HAVE to sign dues check-off clause, or REQUIRE their employees to pay any type of fee to a union. And given the recent trends (lockouts and such), I think you'll see more and more employers with the fortitude to go that route. With the existence of "RTW" states and the onslaught of foreign competition, many of them will simply have to go that route if they want to stay in business.</p><p></p><p>The bottom line is that unions are TERRIFIED by the idea of workers having a "free choice". Even with the partisanship evident in the recent Teamsters election, the low level of participation has to have the unions bureaucracy quivering in their boots at the realization that SOMEDAY, this more-than-80% segment of the membership might have a CHOICE in whether they want to belong - and be "represented" - or not. As long as they feel that way, I think they'll be fighting a rear-guard battle for theirvery existence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 934959, member: 16651"] Dark_Team; As I mentioned in another post the N.friend.L. Players Association went that route just a few short months ago; they "decertified", and bargained as a non-certified association of MEMBERS only, primarily in hopes of pursuing anti-trust issues against the owners. There are also several casts of well-known television shows who have bargained that way as well (Seinfeld and Friends, I believe, to name a couple). Fact is, there's nothing at all unusual about it; it's as basic as hiring a lawyer - or anyone else, for that matter - to represent you. And remember BASIC labor law protects any group that acts in a "concerted" (not individual) fashion. Why don't unions use it? Again, greed. You see, they would lose certain forms of legal support if they went that route. For one, companies wouldn't HAVE to negotiate with them (although the "concerted" action thing would apply, meaning that union members couldn't be arbitrarily fired for their efforts); they would have to use their natural ECONOMIC power to achieve what they wanted to achieve. And they would subject themselves (I'm "iffy" here, so don't hold me to this!) certain legal problems as well...for example, being held liable for statements and actions that they can now usually skate away with. But the primary reason they don't go that route - and this is one I've already mentioned as well - is the COMPETITION! If unions don't have the right to "represent" ALL the workers, then that means that workers who choose OTHER representation, or no representation at all, can do so. And who do you think those would be? The weaker, less-valued by management workers who (with good reason!) seek the union's protection? Or the real industrious go-getters, who, being highly valued by management, would be held-back if they settled for "union" wages? THEY - the industrious workers - would see their lot improved, while the weaker workers would find a rough row to hoe. What would they (the weaker workers) do? Go on strike? Not holding a labor monopoly, they'd be replaced in no time flat....or at least that's the way unions feel about it today. The only alternatives, of course, are either "compulsion" (the only path on which the unions seem to feel they can exist today), or the path that the original labor pioneer Samuel G saw as best for "organized" labor...one in which the unions DEMONSTRATED the benefits of membership to workers in order to ATTRACT them rather than seeking laws that FORCED them to belong. Like I said earlier, the unions get much more out of the non-members than the non-members get out of the union. And the proof is in the pudding. In the "RTW" states, as you've seemed to notice, they still aren't taking that route. While there are a few, it's a very, VERY small number that have chosen to drop "exclusive representation" status. They just don't have the guts to try to exist on the basis of their ability to attract members by virture of benefits they have to offer alone. One of the consequences, however, is that unions are ALWAYS going to face criticism about limiting peoples choices, and rightfully so. Remember, unionism isn't just about raising the level of the "low", but also of bringing down the level of the "high". There is no such thing as a "free lunch"; someone has to pay. In the case of unionism, it's those who would be doing better (and there are many of them; that's a primary reason why "union" penetration of the workforce is at such an abysmal level today) without the union, and are being held-back by forced representation who are paying the price. I questioned earlier as to just when the Indiana UPSers got to to vote on whether they wanted to be union members or not. Maybe they once had that choice...although I doubt even that. If they did, it was back in the fifties....and I'm fairly certain that if they DID have a choice a half a century ago, there probably aren't any of them around who cast a ballot back then who are still employed today. And don't you find that a bit strange...that people aren't able to even express a CHOICE as to whether to go "union" or not during their ENTIRE working career? And consider that in light of the Teamsters recent national election in which only 17.6% or so of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP cared enough about the union bureaucracy to even vote. Don't you think that reflects a rather "dictatorial" situation? In spite of assertions by bozos like "crowbar" there, the Teamsters haven't been a part of UPS "for over 100 years"; they were actually invited in by Casey in the 1920's. And I'm not sure the employees had any type of vote (this is before the NLRA, of course) on the matter even back then. That said, I'm not AGAINST the Teamsters being at UPS, nor am I pushing strongly for them to drop "exclusive" status; I'm well aware that, without such status, at a highly competitive place like UPS, the union would be gone faster than a dog's fart in the breeze. Heck, in terms of the total number of employees, actual Teamster members are already less than half of the company's workforce today. But I also don't think the unions ought to be griping about "freeloaders", since they know damned well that, if left to their OWN devices and allowed to make their OWN choices, the labor alternative they represented would make the union superfluous. Unions may gripe about spending the money on representing non-members...but they'll continue spending it. But it won't be because they're interested in protecting the rights of those non-members or any other such pie-in-the-sky stuff, but rather for the simple matter of simple self-preservation and institutional greed. Despite that, however, I'm fairly sure you're going to see even more examples - even in "non-RTW states - along the lines of the recent Manitowoc Crane strike and subsequent settlement; i.e. - the unions will no longer be able to force compulsory dues from those who choose not to be members. After all, there's no law that says employers HAVE to sign dues check-off clause, or REQUIRE their employees to pay any type of fee to a union. And given the recent trends (lockouts and such), I think you'll see more and more employers with the fortitude to go that route. With the existence of "RTW" states and the onslaught of foreign competition, many of them will simply have to go that route if they want to stay in business. The bottom line is that unions are TERRIFIED by the idea of workers having a "free choice". Even with the partisanship evident in the recent Teamsters election, the low level of participation has to have the unions bureaucracy quivering in their boots at the realization that SOMEDAY, this more-than-80% segment of the membership might have a CHOICE in whether they want to belong - and be "represented" - or not. As long as they feel that way, I think they'll be fighting a rear-guard battle for theirvery existence. [/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