Why am I forced to join the union?

[ummmm........]

If that was true, unions never would have gotten a foothold in our nation at all. Corporate influence would have been used to render them illegal and have them stomped out of existence.

Companies did use government workers (police, I think) to break strikes in the 30s, didn't they? (I could be wrong, and my old American Civ book is all the way in the other room, so I'm not checking).

 

[Ethics]

Beign forced to join a labour union is quite illegal here.
Why the heel would a company do that. Did the union make the force employees to join them? That's pretty screwed up.

Well, in the states, the Unions garnered enough power in the Northeast that some states are basically union shops only. Traditionally in the South, that has not been the case. I'm assuming Illinois must be a union shop because Kroger squabbles with the Union enough that I don't think theyd have given in to that sort of requirements.

Furthermore, BasketCase has a very good point. By protecting some employees (wages, jobs, whatever), others will be the victims. Shortsighted policies have always been linked to the traditonal socialism.
That doesn't mean unions are always crappy. Modern unions (not all, but most) realise what position companies can be in, and simply fight for a decent environment for employees.

We have a name for co-operating labour unions and companies: Polder model .

Preach! My old manager and I had a discussion one day about my wage (Im a workaholic... literally had different departmental managers fighting over who got me) and how he couldn't raise me from minimum due to seniority issued the Union had gotten through. I don't have a problem with seniority, but when the guy *noone wants* due to slothfulness and lack of work ethic is getting his 40hours and a raise because hes protected by union policy and not the paragon worker... it only hurts business.

 

[BasketCase]

Maybe. Dunno. History was one of my least favorite subjects in school, along with geography, English, art, mathematics....in fact, anything not related to science or computers was my least favorite.

I do know corporations did fight pretty hard to eliminate unions. I also know they lost. Whenever anybody says something along the lines of "X influence runs the whole planet", I automatically put up a mental red flag. The only thing that rules the planet is a stack of 200 Radar Artillery units backed by a few armies full of elite Modern Armors.

 

[Ethics]

Companies did use government workers (police, I think) to break strikes in the 30s, didn't they? (I could be wrong, and my old American Civ book is all the way in the other room, so I'm not checking).

Hmm, I dunno about the 30s (I wouldnt doubt strikes were broken up though), but by then FDR and his New Deal policy was in the works, and Francis Perkins had been put in as Secretary of Labor. There may have been some attacks due to communism (although its been proven many Communists then in the states were connected with the Soviet Union), but those died out due to Fascism fears.

Now, before Teddy Roosevelt's administration, Unions pretty much took it on the chin from the Federal Government. Late 19th, early 20th century. Its a complicated history though =)

 

[Adebisi]

Unions are nescessary in any capitalistic society, they are the only way to assure some basic rights and reasonable wages. I read that the minimum wage in Idaho or some other state was just over $4 an hour, no one can live on that but some people will be forced to work two or three jobs which pay 4$ an hour if they do not unionize.

You seem to ignore the fact that wages are set by supply and demand, and that it is extremely hard to get away from this. This is felt in Sweden as black market jobs and umeployment. I dont know why, but Swedes in particular seem to think that wages need to be set by a union. However unions are not the reason we have high wages, it is a result of economic growth and individual unwillingness to accept a low-paid job (in fact Social Democracy needs low wages to provide basic education and health care).

 

[Adebisi]

Well the thing is "mandatory" union membership isn't any more mandatory than any other conditions that an employee might have to agree to (the wage, etc.). People must join the union IF they want the job, but they don't have to get the job.Well that I can understand.

They aren't of course by definition "mandatory", but unions rarely exist without legislation, especially in Europe. Germany is a horrific example of this, as you can see in Little Raven's thread about unemployment.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Unions are mafias. Some of them even use physical violence to shut their enemies up(common over here).

Unions should be purely voluntary. Unfortunately in many places, like my country, the government grants then monopolistic powers.
Personally I want the leaders of the two major brazilian unions to die a horrible death. Their manners would make Al Capone shy.

I know nothing about how unions operate in Brazil, but in the U.S. alot of the corruption and mafia influence in big unions has been eliminated. Not all, there'll always be a certain amount of corruption in any large orginization. For millions of workers, the unions are the only thing that allow them to work and make a decent wage and have basic medical insurance for themselves and their families.

I hate unions and I am convinced that they serve no purpose today other than to gouge employers. Unions ceased being useful once the government began ensuring fair wages and working hours.

Without the union movement many of the labor laws we take for granted today wouldnt exist today.

Why are so many people so hostile to something as simple and straightforward as collective bargaining?

 

[Mise]

IMO people who are against legislation protecting unions are hypocrits if they use analagous (sometimes identical) legislation to protect companies.

A company can employ only women if they want, or non-smokers, or family members. Of course, if the same company wants to employ only UNION members, it's a whole different story...

One more thing: I'd wager the right fears union power for the same reason the left fears corporate power. They both make me do things I don't wanna do. (this is where I raise a fist in the air and scream "Freedom!")

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Companies have so much power over their workers, that unions are the only thing that level the playing field somewhat. Making union membership voluntary would undermine all the other unionized workers and make the union pointless. Like was said by someone here earlier, if it was voluntary, then the company would naturally only hire people who didnt want to join the union. If a person is idealogically opposed to unions, its very simple, dont go to work in a union shop. Theres always Burger King. They pay $5.00 an hour, theres no medical insurance, and you can be fired without notice for any reason whatsoever that might not have anything to do with your performance on the job. But at least theres no evil union to worry about.

 

[EdwardTking]

I got a job at Kroger, and before they hired me, they told me I was forced to join the union. I have a strong dislike for unions, but I needed a job, so I signed on the dotted line. My manager made me sign a paper saying I'll have a 2 month probationary period before I am allowed to enter the union.

So Thursday was payday, and on it, next to my taxes are my union fees and dues. The union took out $25.00, while I only took home $21.36. Someone please justify how the union is supposed to help me, when they are going to force me to borrow money from my parents to pay for my gas. Why am I forced to join the union? Shouldn't I have a choice?

That is an amazing up front loading of Union fees.

If your manager raises union issues in any negative way for you,
I suggest you tell your manager that by the way since you
signed the paper, the company payroll people have, obviously not
knowing about the paper, deducted your union fee and presumably
paid the union; so you are already a paid up union member - no problems.

 

[Godwynn]

A company can employ only women if they want, or non-smokers, or family members. Of course, if the same company wants to employ only UNION members, it's a whole different story

SO what if a company only wants to employ women, etc... If they are paying the wages, no one else should have a say in who gets the job or not.

 

[Godwynn]

Theres always Burger King. They pay $5.00 an hour, theres no medical insurance, and you can be fired without notice for any reason whatsoever that might not have anything to do with your performance on the job.

And? The company gave it, they can take it away.

The saying works for God, why not companies?

 

[Mise]

SO what if a company only wants to employ women, etc... If they are paying the wages, no one else should have a say in who gets the job or not.

So quit *****ing about your union fees then!!!

 

[WillJ]

SO what if a company only wants to employ women, etc... If they are paying the wages, no one else should have a say in who gets the job or not.

And you realize the same applies when the company has given into a union and lets the union have a say, right? (I can't tell what your viewpoint is.)

 

[Richard Cribb]

How exactly do unions conflict with libertarian ideology? .

Because libertarians are corporate brown-nosers.

Unions are mafias. Some of them even use physical violence to shut their enemies up(common over here).

Unions should be purely voluntary. Unfortunately in many places, like my country, the government grants then monopolistic powers.
Personally I want the leaders of the two major brazilian unions to die a horrible death. Their manners would make Al Capone shy.

The mafia description is better fitted to the owners of corporations.They also don't shy away from physical terror, either...
And please, grow up. It is chilling to read time and again you wishing somebody dead. Since I have been a member of more than one "mafia" , I should rather be the one who does the killing.

Unions are nescessary in any capitalistic society, they are the only way to assure some basic rights and reasonable wages.

Exactly!

However, many unions now are corrupt and do nothing but hinder their members and the companies they work for.

Unfortunately that is true, but the solution then is to reform them rather than to abolish them.

I think there shouldn't be a choice. Although this will result in some unfair cases such as yours, it prevents employers from not hiring people that want to join a union, which would be widespread if unions became optional. One might say, "Then why not pass laws against employers who do such things?" That would be the best solution, however, the government would never do that, as they are in the pockets of the corporations, and even if they did do that, such a law would be hard to enforce, as it would be hard to prove that an employer didn't hire you because you said you'd join the union.

I believe, the company gave the job, they can take it away, for any reason, at any time, to whoever they want.

The Company gave, the Company took, praise the Company!

You may hate unions, but the industrialised world is facing an increasing wealth gap. Does anybody think that's going to get better without unions? I think not.

Agreed.

The government back then knew that they had to make concessions to the liberals or else face a revolution. Today's government doesn't think that it has need to do that, as it can merely play the Jesus Card.

They might pass laws protecting people, then. But all an employer has to do is during the job interview say, "I would advise you not to join this union. *wink* *wink*." That's almost impossible to prove in court, no matter how good the laws are. But a few jobs should not be unionized.

You are a wise man!

Shortsighted policies have always been linked to the traditonal socialism.
That doesn't mean unions are always crappy. Modern unions (not all, but most) realise what position companies can be in, and simply fight for a decent environment for employees.

We have a name for co-operating labour unions and companies: Polder model .

I think you know less about socialism than the cat about mustard. And those "modern" unions were popular in the 30s and very appreciated by among others rather doubtful political movements.
Decency forbids me to write what I call those unions.

However unions are not the reason we have high wages, it is a result of economic growth and individual unwillingness to accept a low-paid job (in fact Social Democracy needs low wages to provide basic education and health care).

Yes they are. Economical growth can very well benefit only a minority. However if you and some other posters really think that social, economical and political rights would have been given to common people if they had not united and struggled for their rights, then I recommend some elementary history books.
Actually you find less people with low wages and much less unemployment in real social-democracies than more market-fundamentalistic ones.

I know nothing about how unions operate in Brazil, but in the U.S. alot of the corruption and mafia influence in big unions has been eliminated. Not all, there'll always be a certain amount of corruption in any large orginization. For millions of workers, the unions are the only thing that allow them to work and make a decent wage and have basic medical insurance for themselves and their families.

Without the union movement many of the labor laws we take for granted today wouldnt exist today.

Exactly.

Why are so many people so hostile to something as simple and straightforward as collective bargaining?

Probably because of that ugly 5-letter word. Those things you mention are not middle-class issues.Why care about those less fortunate than ourselves?

 

[Adebisi]

Yes they are. Economical growth can very well benefit only a minority. However if you and some other posters really think that social, economical and political rights would have been given to common people if they had not united and struggled for their rights, then I recommend some elementary history books.

How are wages set in your world then if not by supply and demand? Do you think that employers could simply cut wages as much as they wanted if we removed every legislation concerning unions?

If inequality is your problem then transfers of income is a much better solution than massive unionization that merely creates unemployment on a German level.

Anyone who thinks unions are good should study economics...

Actually you find less people with low wages and much less unemployment in real social-democracies than more market-fundamentalistic ones.

I, of course, believe that the opposite is true. But that is not the topic of this discussion.

You cannot compare wages for jobs that cannot exist in a welfare state because they would not be profitable. When discussing unemployment caused by unions you should not take into account jobs created by the public sector either because they are not funded by unions. The public sector also acts as an anti-union because it lowers wages, in order to provide services at a low cost.

 

[Richard Cribb]

How are wages set in your world then if not by supply and demand? Do you think that employers could simply cut wages as much as they wanted if we removed every legislation concerning unions?

If inequality is your problem then transfers of income is a much better solution than massive unionization that merely creates unemployment on a German level.

Anyone who thinks unions are good should study economics....

Yes i think employers or rather buyers of labour would cut wages as much as they can, which is why corporations really love thirld-world dictatorships without annoying unions - there are not many NIKE - factories in Scandinavia, are there?
In the real world, which I have studied as a historian and also lived in , it is all a question of power. Before unions and might I add in branches which is union-hostile(likefast-food) even today, wages have a tendency to be rather modest. The point is that every single employee, or worker as I prefer to call it in my unpolished underclass-language, represent very little power to match the owner of the corporation/factory. The only way one can get influence is exactly to team up with the others in the same position, so that sheer numbers can match economical power.Already Adam Smith pointed out this.

I, of course, believe that the opposite is true. But that is not the topic of this discussion.

You cannot compare wages for jobs that cannot exist in a welfare state because they would not be profitable. When discussing unemployment caused by unions you should not take into account jobs created by the public sector either because they are not funded by unions. The public sector also acts as an anti-union because it lowers wages, in order to provide services at a low cost.

You brought in this topic. What causes most unemployment of unions or the absence of unions is a moot point.
And for that part about lowering wages. I still maintain that well functioning welfare states has less people with slave wages than more market-fundamentalistic ones. Also keep in mind that many services in a welfare state will be provided by the public so that the costs does not have to come out of your own pocket.

 

[Fifty]

I think it is ridiculous that one would have to join a union to work.

The reason that unions do this is to prevent a free-loader problem that has plagued all forms of organizations since organizations have existed.

In order for unions to have power they need people, but people should still have the right to work. Unions need to come up with an incentive to join the union without violating the right to work. That way you would largely solve the free-loader problem, without forcing people to join.

 

[downtown]

of course people have a right to work. Isnt that what the libertarians say whenever people get mad that a company only wants to hire white people, or family members? Just work somewhere else!

If you dont like unions, and you're a libertarian, then work at a non-union company. To sit here and whine about it is a double standard. Its the employer's money. if you want to work there (which is a choice), suck it up and follow his rules. Isnt that what you guys preach?

 

[Rhymes]

Without the union movement many of the labor laws we take for granted today wouldnt exist today.

Why are so many people so hostile to something as simple and straightforward as collective bargaining?

This used to be true 40-50 years ago, but today the role of the unions have changed. We now have government legislations to ensure minimal wages and good worker conditions.

From what I have observed, modern unions are most of the time a nuisance to workers, especially in small businesses where comon sens is always better for both employees and owners then stupid union laws.

In other countries though the unions have evolved in a better direction, like in germany, where they work in collaboration with the company instead of against it....