Right to work.....finally
- Thread starter UKRob 73
- Start date
You guys have to stop believing all the **** they feed you down at the union hall. It's a fallacy union's have passed down to their members for decades. It's a federal law that union's don't have to represent non paying members. The AFL-CIO just tried that argument in Indiana's RTW, and the Indiana supreme Court unanimously ruled that union's do not have to represent non paying members. They basically laughed them out of the courtroom.
Read the last 4 paragraphs of this link, it describes why union's don't have to represent non paying members and the unanimous ruling by the Indiana supreme Court.
http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...work-movement-changing-battlefields/20132113/
Read the last 4 paragraphs of this link, it describes why union's don't have to represent non paying members and the unanimous ruling by the Indiana supreme Court.
http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...work-movement-changing-battlefields/20132113/
We know how unions work, we don't need a column from a partisan to educate us. Not to sound like a dick, but you have to use common sense. If the union is not the sole representative at that factory, it's no longer a union. What you would be advocating actually proves the unions point about rtw laws being used only to bust unions.
Last edited:
You obviously don't know how union's work when you say they have to represent non paying members. They don't, it's a choice.
I linked the article because it had the quotes from the Indiana supreme Court. The unanimous decision ruling that union's ABSOLUTELY don't have to represent non paying members.
You can spin it anyway you want, but that's just fact.
I linked the article because it had the quotes from the Indiana supreme Court. The unanimous decision ruling that union's ABSOLUTELY don't have to represent non paying members.
You can spin it anyway you want, but that's just fact.
Rob, you should reread that article. Most places have one union, per the article in that case every employee MUST be covered by the union.
The article tries to play it off as unions not wanting to compete with each other, which in that case not every employee wouldn't have to be covered, if opened up to more unions in a workplace.
However there's always more layers to the onion. If a plant has 150 line workers and 15 maintenance men and they form two separate unions, the maintenance men don't have as much negotiating leverage.
i know exactly how unions work, and would be happy to educate you if needed. let me tell you how your thinking is flawed. if the union is not the sole negotiator for employees, its no longer a union environment. its called a union for a reason, its not just a random word that was chosen. if an employee was able to negotiate his own wages outside of the union, which is what would make it legal for the union to NOT represent him, the factory would entice those employees with temporary bonuses in order to buy them out of the union. thus busting the union, which is the sole purpose of the law to begin with. you understand that, right?
I work in an open shop (you can join if you'd like to be a member of the union or not join if you don't want to be a member), fyi, over 95% of the employees choose to be a dues paying member. I can tell you as a union steward that I have to absolutely represent members and non-members alike.
Last edited:
Bill, yes that's correct. If they CHOOSE to be an exclusive union, they must represent all employees. But by no means do they have to CHOOSE to be an exclusive union. They can CHOOSE to be a "members only" union, in which they don't have to represent non paying members.
Like the supreme Court said....." It's absolutely a choice union's make"
I don't think you understand what exclusive union means. It means one union represents the plant, instead of having several unions representing the different crafts.
The unions don't choose this, it's up to the workers to vote on it. However if a small shop of maintenance workers want to join say the IBEW they could, but they have more bargaining power being members of the union the rest of the plant is in.
I was talking to my step dad who is retiring from Dow Chemical in May. The factory guys are union but he is a chemical engineer in the lab and they are not union.
He was explaining that they had the option when it was still Rohm & Haas but given the completely different environment and workplace hazards the Lab agreed not to enter the union.
They are not represented ever by the union and operate on their own merit. Seems like the right dept setup for unions to operate under.
Why is this so hard?
He was explaining that they had the option when it was still Rohm & Haas but given the completely different environment and workplace hazards the Lab agreed not to enter the union.
They are not represented ever by the union and operate on their own merit. Seems like the right dept setup for unions to operate under.
Why is this so hard?
You are partially correct. Take Ford for example. The UAW is voted in. The UAW then has the choice to be 1. Exclusive union or 2. Members only . The workers don't get that choice, the union does.
Union's like to pick 1. Because it keeps other unions from coming in. If they CHOOSE #1, then they absolutely have to represent all workers. But that's absolutely their choice. There are union's that have chosen to be members only, and they don't have to represent non paying members.
As the court unanimously said, it's absolutely the choice of nobody but the union.
Most union's are like this. But it's because your union CHOSE to be the exclusive union. They didn't have to choose that.
So you don't have to, you chose to.
You can't educate me because you don't know what you are talking about. You are arguing your opinion, I'm arguing federal labor laws, and court rulings to back them up.
Union's have 2 options, 1. Be the sole union OR 2. Be a "members only". I quoted that, because that's how it's worded in the federal labor law.
Union's mostly choose #1 because they don't want competition from other unions. The UAW doesn't want the cafeteria union to come in and represent the cafeteria workers, they want all the workers and all the dues. But when they choose #1, they have to represent all employees, even non paying members.
But they don't have to CHOOSE #1, they can choose #2. And some do. And those that do, don't have to represent non paying members.
As the supreme Court asked during the trial....." If it's not a choice, how come there are union's in the US RIGHT NOW that don't represent non paying members"..........
The answer.....Because they CHOSE to be "members only" which entitles them to not have to represent non paying members.
Bill I know exactly what exclusive union means and why they do it.
That doesn't change the fact that they don't have to choose to be an exclusive union, it's their choice.
You are getting caught up on why union's choose to be an exclusive union. I get the advantages.
The fact remains, it's still a choice, they don't have to choose that. Go back and read the unanimous ruling by the supreme Court.
The difference is what statistics you use. This study uses the total # of plants, both major assembly plants and tier suppliers in that particular state.
The study linked above that has KY as #3 goes by actual number of cars produced.
I've been in every major automotive plant in the US. and a bunch in Canada. I've sat through hundreds of presentations from every major automotive manufacturer and supplier in the US, and have seen ky anywhere from #3-#8 depending on what criteria they use.
impressive standing. Was not aware Kentucky's lofty status in auto-making, although the big Ford plants are well known, Toyota in Georgetown. Can't imagine that enough Corvettes are sold to make a difference one way or another. Pleasantly surprised to learn this puts us 3rd, behind states both of which have more than double KY population. 3rd is excellent. Thank you for sharing.
A union that desires full domain is just that. A worker in a RTW state who desires to not join such a union may say "I do not want your representation, leave me the f'k alone!" Unfortunately for him, the greedy union, who desired full domain, in order to exclude other unions, must and will represent him, regardless of whether he wants them to or not. This would be similar to going to court with the intention of representing yourself, and not being allowed to do so, because one lawyer somehow managed to keep all other lawyers from practicing in all the courtrooms in the courthouse. In this circumstance, it is the union (the one practicing lawyer) that somehow crafts an image of being the victim. Go figure.
its not just about letting other unions in. if its a members only union, employees would have the ability to negotiate for themselves outside of the union. the company, ford in your example, would entice members to leave the union with bonuses. thus busting the union. like i said, its called a union for a reason. its not just a random word.
ive worked for ford for decades, at a few plants. i can tell you what the purpose of rtw work is, and i can tell you the results of what being a members only union would be.
UKRob I hope you are in a union. Then you can be better educated on unions. I was in a union for 14 years. I worked in oil refineries, paper mills, coal fired power stations, etc. There were multiple unions in each plant as we were there for timed outages or complete new builds. Marathon refinery had two unions within the plant due to the size of the refinery, and they were split in roughly the middle of the plant.
Its very clear you are simply anti-union. Perhaps a couple years of moron Bevin and seeing if any good comes from RTW changes your mind. I'm pretty sure that 4 years of Bevin and Trump will swing Kentucky back to a pro-Democrat state and RTW should be repealed immediately.
Its very clear you are simply anti-union. Perhaps a couple years of moron Bevin and seeing if any good comes from RTW changes your mind. I'm pretty sure that 4 years of Bevin and Trump will swing Kentucky back to a pro-Democrat state and RTW should be repealed immediately.
I did Rob, and I understand why the workers choose it, it simply makes more sense negotiating wise for one union to represent a plant instead of several with smaller numbers.
The union doesn't choose it, the workers do, and they can change it at any time, but then they'll have to renegotiate a contract with less leverage.
That's not going to happen anytime soon. The dems would have to take back all of the state senate, state house and the Governor's office to repeal RTW. Kentucky just passed a law that said that union dues can't go toward political contributions. That is going to make it significantly harder to dems to win seats back since union money is one of their largest sources of funding.
would? or just theoretically "could?" and btw, boo-effing-hoo . . . Ford Motor Co. offering bonuses to hourly employees as a result of the right to work law being implemented.
Oh, the horror of a closed shop experiencing examples of their bargaining blanket being draped across workers who do not want it . . . as if an industry has never experienced examples of their profits being wasted on lazy and routinely absent workers who they could not replace, all because of an all too MIGHTY AND POWERFUL union protection.
Bill, as usual, I think we are closer to agreeing than disagreeing. I don't disagree with what you said. I understand why union's choose to be an " exclusive union", there are certainly benefits. But that's not what we are arguing. Remember, this all came about because bananpants said union's have to represent non paying members. That's simply not true. That's just fact. And as evidence, there are union's in the US RIGHT now that don't have to represent non paying members. Simply by their choice.
So while you want to argue why union's WANT to represent all the workers, that doesn't change the fact that they don't have to.
Two things. #1, the southern states have had RTW for decades, I've never heard of this doom and gloom scenario ever happening.
#2 There are countless union's in the US that have chosen to be members only union's.
I'm in manufacturing, and a supplier to every major automotive company in America. I've been on union study boards, been part of legislation, deliverer of grievances to union's, and part of a leadership team to transition a factory to a union facility. Your experience is what they tell you down at the union hall.
I believe in the right of employees to collectively bargain. But I believe it should be a choice, and I believe many union's don't represent the true interest of their employees anymore. If that makes me anti union. So be it. But I certainly know what I'm talking about.
Which ones Rob? How many plants that you know of that have more than one union affiliated with it? Because that's the only way according to the article you posted.
I disagree Rob, if you want to say that executive boards of the unions don't then I might agree with you, but to say the local union that actually does 95% of the work related to the worker then I simply can't agree.
Not necessarily. One of the above posters in a union mentioned that he worked in a plant with multiple union's. That's one scenario. But they also gave several examples during the trial, of plants that chose to be "member only" and didn't have any other union presence.
Remember, choosing " member only" just means that other unions can compete for those emoyees. It doesn't necessarily mean that other unions will enter that particular plant.
The bottom line, it's a calculated choice by unions.
i am still a dumb here, just a question, we have 2 unions in the plant, one for the metal workers tool room, and one for the electrical, the IBEW. every 3 years when the contract negotiations take place, i am told that all the major unions have reps there negotiating the contract. UAW, IBEW, teamsters, etc, are all involved. does this sound correct?
Rob, it means the plant has more than one union, thats all it means, in that case all employees don't have to be covered. If there is one union every employee must be covered by the union.
Spare me the the nonsense about voter intimidation, the Union voter is just as open to intimidation from the non union and company side, surely non union guys aren't that soft.
My son experienced the same thing at Kroger. Had to pay union dues with no benefits. Unions serve one purpsose and that is a political arm of the Dem party. Their job is to round up votes. I moved from a union shop state 30 years ago and will never live in one again. Kentucky will not regret becoming right to work.
RTW iis more than just unions. Years ago I was a Regional Mgr with a large corp that made you sign a non-compete contract when hired. I left them a number of years later to take a position running a rather large company in the same industry. A competitor. Was sued for a million bucks. Counter sued for three in that the former employer was deposing people I had worked for me to basically find out what I was doing..if I was trying to hire old employees (which I did), etc. Basically legal harassment.. Being that I was in a RTW state it never got to court. Old employer dropped it knowing they couldn't win. But only after they made sure I would drop my counter suit.
Be it union or white collar...RTW gives the employee the choice.
Be it union or white collar...RTW gives the employee the choice.
false. maybe their is no need for a grocery bagger to be in a union. but he could have stocked shelves anywhere, he chose to be in a union.