The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I honestly don't know. I was in the union as a part timer and I seem to remember that most of the other part timers were union as well, but that was quite a few years ago.

Allot of our newer part timers aren't but the majority of full timers are. Most I've talked to believe in RTW though.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Wrote it mostly as hyperbole. I got 10+ years in. I understand and appreciate the role of the Union. I'm not going anywhere. But my post essentially reflects what I think probably 95% of the part timers I work with take it as.

 

[brett636]

Even though I will now have the option of not paying dues I will continue to pay them because I believe I get pretty fair representation, and I imagine most of my fellow full timers will continue paying dues as well. Its the part-timers the union will have to really work on. When I started there was no union representative present at my new employee orientation. We were handed a sheet of paper that said we were in a union and the dues were "x" amount and that was that. We signed the paper and moved on, and it shows how little the union is involved when you look at our current crop of part time employees who don't know their contractual rights or why they are in a union at all. That will have to change now that the union has to sell itself to all new and current part time employees. The union has been selling a mantra of "the sky is falling!", and it has been effective as I ran into someone who was convinced our wages were going to be cut as soon as the bill goes into effect. In the end little will change for the current employees, and even new employees only they will finally get an idea of what the union is, who is representing them, and a better idea of why they should pay dues.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Even though I will now have the option of not paying dues I will continue to pay them because I believe I get pretty fair representation, and I imagine most of my fellow full timers will continue paying dues as well. Its the part-timers the union will have to really work on. When I started there was no union representative present at my new employee orientation. We were handed a sheet of paper that said we were in a union and the dues were "x" amount and that was that. We signed the paper and moved on, and it shows how little the union is involved when you look at our current crop of part time employees who don't know their contractual rights or why they are in a union at all. That will have to change now that the union has to sell itself to all new and current part time employees. The union has been selling a mantra of "the sky is falling!", and it has been effective as I ran into someone who was convinced our wages were going to be cut as soon as the bill goes into effect. In the end little will change for the current employees, and even new employees only they will finally get an idea of what the union is, who is representing them, and a better idea of why they should pay dues.

At least there will be a choice. And that's all most people want. I waited a year before joining.

 

[hypocrisy]

Most companies can't afford to dole out our wages and benefits. If they were were all unionized you could bet your shiny gold Karl Marx statue that most would go under or move overseas once the unions intrenched themselves. Sometimes unions ask for too much. But that's not the point of the debate over RTW. I ThANK GOD that your arrogant, socialist, mob rule mentality represents the extreme minority (just look at the dwindling union membership and dwindling support of RTW for proof of that) of America's workforce. We'd be in deep brown otherwise.

I'm sure you do, because obviously you celebrate the erosion of the middle class in America. You should really read more about the business elite in this Country: the golden parachutes they get, the free lunches from taxpayers, the outright stealing they do from the rest of us. It might change your mind about what is really going on as it did mine. Companies can more than afford to pay real wages and benefits for their employees but choose not to because there isn't enough Unionism out there to make them do it.

Might want to wake up and notice that we have been in 'deep brown' and yet your Glenn Beck addled mind continues to blame unions which you admit are in the minority.

Brett is right, but it's time for the protesters to turn their energy to the initiative process and throwing these bums out in November. I look forward to donating to their cause.

 

[brett636]

Brett is right, but it's time for the protesters to turn their energy to the initiative process and throwing these bums out in November. I look forward to donating to their cause.

Goodluck with that. Admittedly a few republicans may be vulnerable due to this, but Mitch Daniel's replacement will be Mike Pence and good luck getting him to sign a repeal of this Right to work law. Indiana's political makeup will have to shift dramatically before you see any movement backwards as you would seem to think is necessary.

 

[804brown]

Dean Baker notes how this is bad for all workers, not just union members:

"...a union is legally obligated to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit, regardless of whether a worker has opted to join the union.
This means that non-members not only get the same wages and benefits that the union gets for its members, they also are entitled to the union's protection in the event of disputes with the employer. Most states allow workers to sign contracts that require non-union members to pay for the benefits they receive from the union.
The bill passed by Indiana's legislature prohibits unions and employers from signing this sort of contract. Instead, it requires unions to provide free representation to non-members."


Writing for The Nation, Gordon Lafer explains:

Twenty-two states, predominantly in the old Confederacy, already have “right to work” laws—mostly dating from the McCarthy era. “Right to work” (RTW) does not guarantee anyone a job. Rather, it makes it illegal for unions to require that each employee who benefits from the terms of a contract pay his or her share of the costs of administering it. By making it harder for workers’ organizations to sustain themselves financially, RTW aims to undermine unions’ bargaining strength and eventually render them extinct.
​

 

[804brown]

I'm sure you do, because obviously you celebrate the erosion of the middle class in America. You should really read more about the business elite in this Country: the golden parachutes they get, the free lunches from taxpayers, the outright stealing they do from the rest of us. It might change your mind about what is really going on as it did mine. Companies can more than afford to pay real wages and benefits for their employees but choose not to because there isn't enough Unionism out there to make them do it.

Might want to wake up and notice that we have been in 'deep brown' and yet your Glenn Beck addled mind continues to blame unions which you admit are in the minority.

Brett is right, but it's time for the protesters to turn their energy to the initiative process and throwing these bums out in November. I look forward to donating to their cause.

INDIANA STATE AFL-CIO - NEWS RELEASE POLL FINDS HOOSIERS WANT MORE TIME; PUBLIC REFERENDUM ON “RIGHT TO WORK”

Donate to fight right to work(for less) :INDIANA STATE AFL-CIO - DONATE to fight RTW

 

[PobreCarlos]

Dean Baker notes how this is bad for all workers, not just union members:

"...a union is legally obligated to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit, regardless of whether a worker has opted to join the union.
This means that non-members not only get the same wages and benefits that the union gets for its members, they also are entitled to the union's protection in the event of disputes with the employer. Most states allow workers to sign contracts that require non-union members to pay for the benefits they receive from the union.
The bill passed by Indiana's legislature prohibits unions and employers from signing this sort of contract. Instead, it requires unions to provide free representation to non-members."


Writing for The Nation, Gordon Lafer explains:

Twenty-two states, predominantly in the old Confederacy, already have “right to work” laws—mostly dating from the McCarthy era. “Right to work” (RTW) does not guarantee anyone a job. Rather, it makes it illegal for unions to require that each employee who benefits from the terms of a contract pay his or her share of the costs of administering it. By making it harder for workers’ organizations to sustain themselves financially, RTW aims to undermine unions’ bargaining strength and eventually render them extinct.
​

Again, unions are NOT - repeat NOT - "legally obligated to represent all the workers in a bargaining unit, regardless of whether a worker has opted to join the union". They are only obligated to "represent" such non-member individuals IF (and this is a BIG "if"!) they seek EXCLUSIVE representative status, via an NLRB election and certification. If they choose to forego an election and certification, UNIONS CAN JUST REPRESENT JUST THEIR MEMBERS!!!! Look at the recent NFL Players Association "decert", by way of example.

Does "voluntary" status make it harder for unions to "sustain themselves"? Probably; after all, they'd then have to EARN their way, instead of FORCING those who neither want nor need their form "representation" to pay them fees. Unions today, unfortunately, are all about getting something for nothing...and this is a prime example.

When you think "freeloaders", think in terms of the union which is riding on the backs of those who, regardless of their level of initiative, are being held-back by the "mean" the unions represent...and are being made to pay for the "favor" in the process. Believe me (as can be seen in the Indiana situation), unions are loath to give up "exclusive" status...and it's NOT just because of the dues. They realize that, if forced to EARN their way based on a VOLUNTARY membership basis, they can't seem to make a go of it.

Not saying that's a good situation for them to be in, by any means. But it IS a situation they brought on themselves, and it's one that should NOT be imposed on those who don't want to be involved with it.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Even though I will now have the option of not paying dues I will continue to pay them because I believe I get pretty fair representation, and I imagine most of my fellow full timers will continue paying dues as well. Its the part-timers the union will have to really work on. When I started there was no union representative present at my new employee orientation. We were handed a sheet of paper that said we were in a union and the dues were "x" amount and that was that. We signed the paper and moved on, and it shows how little the union is involved when you look at our current crop of part time employees who don't know their contractual rights or why they are in a union at all. That will have to change now that the union has to sell itself to all new and current part time employees. The union has been selling a mantra of "the sky is falling!", and it has been effective as I ran into someone who was convinced our wages were going to be cut as soon as the bill goes into effect. In the end little will change for the current employees, and even new employees only they will finally get an idea of what the union is, who is representing them, and a better idea of why they should pay dues.

I don't see how they could sell themselves. New hire sits down with a Union rep. "So if I don't join the Union, do I get different pay". Um, well....no. "Oh, well ok then, but I don't get the same benefits Union members get right?" Umm, well.....actually you get the same benefits. "Oh, well then obviously I will be treated differently, whether it be seniority, things I can be fired for, promotions, etc" Erm, well actually you will be treated exactly the same as a Union employee. Hell, we will even have your back in case you have a run in with the company. "But then I assume I would pay a fee or something?" Nope.

What new hire would actually join? And that's the play. Erode the Union from the ground up.

This was not a Right to Work. It's meant to slowly errod Unions.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I will tell you that if I were part time, this was not my career job and I had the option of not joining the union, I wouldn't.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Optimus;

But in the scenario you provide, you're not talking "union" - an organization of individuals UNITED in a common goal - to begin with. If you're saying that the union would find it impossible to "sell" itself on the basis of the benefits provided, and that it would NOT be able to find a means to communicate that it is only by acting in a UNITED manner that such benefits are obtained, then you're not talking about a process that "erodes" unions; rather, you're asking for a method of PROPPING-UP an organization that has ALREADY "eroded" beyond redemption; i.e. - a parasitical entity that can no longer stand on its own.

Again, why do unions always feel - and express! - the necessity to FORCE individuals to be members? Is that what the concept of "union" is based on? COERCION? Are they such morally bankrupt organizations that they can't function without people being DRIVEN into their grasp?

"Yes", NOT forcing individuals to join them would most definitely affect ("erode", if you will) organizations that HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER ON THEIR OWN. But surely if "unions" are worthy of their name, they SHOULD have "something to offer"...at least to the extent that people don't have to be FORCED to join them!

By your logic, all sorts of organizations can be said to be "eroded" by being forced to function on a voluntary basis. Should there be "unions" organized which have as their stated purpose the granting of welfare and additional sustenance to capitalists, for example? Heck, I'm sure if you could COMPEL people to join such organizations, they would thrive mightily. Sound good to you? Would you like to be FORCED to join such a group?

With that in mind, do you HONESTLY believe that establishing a tyranny over the employee's free choice is the way to go? Or that unions will be "eroded" if they can't exercise such a tyranny? If so, then I'd submit that the union movement is already beyond saving. If unions can't get people to join on the basis of their own volition, then what right do they have to exist?

 

[brown_trousers]

With that in mind, do you HONESTLY believe that establishing a tyranny over the employee's free choice is the way to go? Or that unions will be "eroded" if they can't exercise such a tyranny? If so, then I'd submit that the union movement is already beyond saving. If unions can't get people to join on the basis of their own volition, then what right do they have to exist?

Very well said!

 

[hypocrisy]

Hi,

Thanks for coming in,

Sit right here, we have this nice recliner made of the finest Corinthian leather just for you,

Is the music ok? Let me dim the lights a little,

How about a scented candle? Tropical coconut OK?

There, that’s nice now isn’t it?

This is Cierra, she’ll be your masseuse this evening,

And we also have Tasia, she’s your manicurist,

Those hands can get a little rough from those boxes, no?!

Here, let me get those boots off for you,

Ah, let’s get the stress worked out in these peds,

How’s that feel? Good? I’m glad,

Soooo,

…

How would you feel about joining the Union?

--------------------------------------------------------------

All this nonsense about ‘freedom’ and ‘tyranny’. Give me a break.

You can’t pick the clothes you want to wear on the job yet no one cries for freedom.

Upstate can’t wear those high heels like he does at home, yet you don’t see him crying for freedom.

You can’t even grow a beard without making a federal case out it, yet no one cries for freedom.

Yet when an organization that was freely invited to represent the employees by the employer expects you to either join or pay for the privilege of working under our Contract it’s all of a sudden an assault on freedom.

Then there is the audacity to suggest that now Unions will have to work harder to get members, as if this is some sort of competitive market. How? By giving free massages? Unreal. So let me get this straight: I’m a driver, and a steward, and have a life. But now you want me to be a salesman too? Oh, you expect someone from “the Union” to do it? I am the Union. You are the Union. We have two paid organizers at my Hall that handle organizing entire workplaces. I don’t think they have the time in their day to hold everyone’s hand to get them to sign individually in workplaces that are already Unionized. Even if they did, that’s not what they are being paid for. Hey members, we need a team of 100 organizers just to handle signing up the whiners. You guys OK with having your dues go up 10x? What did you expect them to do this for free?

If RTW was truly about choice and not about eroding Unions, there would be provisions in there to make it easier to Unionize. This is why I have such a vitriolic reaction to RTW and especially members or agency payers who buy into this crap. You want RTW? Then give me equal time, equal access, and card check. If BofA wants to set up a booth inside the yard or even inside the hub, they get the golden key. Me? I have to wait at the gate, getting up early to catch the early risers and trying to hustle in to make my start time. Inside I have to try to catch you in the break room if I want to approach you about membership. They even allowed a local gym to set up a table right outside the office, a complete violation of UPS’ non-solicitation policy; but if I want to wear a Union pin or shirt around the hub I catch hell.

Oh sure, the Contract says they are supposed to allow us time at orientations and notify us of when these occur. They conveniently forget and there is no penalty (add that into your RTW legislation). If I do get time, it’s limited to 10 minutes and I’m no Billy May’s.

Do any of you have any idea how difficult and expensive it is to Unionize a workplace today? Of course you do, and RTW is just designed to make it more expensive and harder to do.

I’ve worked in RTW and Union Shop States and I can tell you that the Union Shop is better. At best, you’re going to get half of your BU to sign up. If you’re lucky you’ll get some hard core transfers from Union Shop States that will assist you in organizing. The Mormon’s won’t join (just as they wouldn’t strike) as they already have to give 10% to their church. You’ll find your membership increases as you get higher up in the ranks (Feeders has the highest) but you’ll still get some idiot who wants to withdraw when a grievance doesn’t go his way and gets all his buddy’s to go along. The Company will play games with your Union dues, double dipping and claiming ignorance which further builds animosity causing more withdrawals. So we’ll have to do more with less and the membership will suffer because of it. Such a deal.

So put your money where your mouth is RTW-ers. Give some of that freedom you supposedly treasure to the Union and make it a fair playing field. It's all about being fair isn't it? Give us equal access, card check, and allow me to advertise. All you are doing now is taking away.

No matter how you frame it, no matter what crap you spew, RTW is just about destroying Unions not some idealistic freedom protecting movement.

 

[Catatonic]

--------------------------------------------------------------

All this nonsense about ‘freedom’ and ‘tyranny’. Give me a break.

You can’t pick the clothes you want to wear on the job yet no one cries for freedom.

Upstate can’t wear those high heels like he does at home, yet you don’t see him crying for freedom.

You can’t even grow a beard without making a federal case out it, yet no one cries for freedom.

Yet when an organization that was freely invited to represent the employees by the employer expects you to either join or pay for the privilege of working under our Contract it’s all of a sudden an assault on freedom.

Then there is the audacity to suggest that now Unions will have to work harder to get members, as if this is some sort of competitive market. How? By giving free massages? Unreal. So let me get this straight: I’m a driver, and a steward, and have a life. But now you want me to be a salesman too? Oh, you expect someone from “the Union” to do it? I am the Union. You are the Union. We have two paid organizers at my Hall that handle organizing entire workplaces. I don’t think they have the time in their day to hold everyone’s hand to get them to sign individually in workplaces that are already Unionized. Even if they did, that’s not what they are being paid for. Hey members, we need a team of 100 organizers just to handle signing up the whiners. You guys OK with having your dues go up 10x? What did you expect them to do this for free?

If RTW was truly about choice and not about eroding Unions, there would be provisions in there to make it easier to Unionize. This is why I have such a vitriolic reaction to RTW and especially members or agency payers who buy into this crap. You want RTW? Then give me equal time, equal access, and card check. If BofA wants to set up a booth inside the yard or even inside the hub, they get the golden key. Me? I have to wait at the gate, getting up early to catch the early risers and trying to hustle in to make my start time. Inside I have to try to catch you in the break room if I want to approach you about membership. They even allowed a local gym to set up a table right outside the office, a complete violation of UPS’ non-solicitation policy; but if I want to wear a Union pin or shirt around the hub I catch hell.

Oh sure, the Contract says they are supposed to allow us time at orientations and notify us of when these occur. They conveniently forget and there is no penalty (add that into your RTW legislation). If I do get time, it’s limited to 10 minutes and I’m no Billy May’s.

Do any of you have any idea how difficult and expensive it is to Unionize a workplace today? Of course you do, and RTW is just designed to make it more expensive and harder to do.

I’ve worked in RTW and Union Shop States and I can tell you that the Union Shop is better. At best, you’re going to get half of your BU to sign up. If you’re lucky you’ll get some hard core transfers from Union Shop States that will assist you in organizing. The Mormon’s won’t join (just as they wouldn’t strike) as they already have to give 10% to their church. You’ll find your membership increases as you get higher up in the ranks (Feeders has the highest) but you’ll still get some idiot who wants to withdraw when a grievance doesn’t go his way and gets all his buddy’s to go along. The Company will play games with your Union dues, double dipping and claiming ignorance which further builds animosity causing more withdrawals. So we’ll have to do more with less and the membership will suffer because of it. Such a deal.

So put your money where your mouth is RTW-ers. Give some of that freedom you supposedly treasure to the Union and make it a fair playing field. It's all about being fair isn't it? Give us equal access, card check, and allow me to advertise. All you are doing now is taking away.

No matter how you frame it, no matter what crap you spew, RTW is just about destroying Unions not some idealistic freedom protecting movement.

So, the bottom line is that it is easier on the Unions and the BAs and the Stewards in a Closed Shop State ... that makes sense.

 

[PobreCarlos]

crowbar;

Do you realize the arrogance of your claim of....

"I am the Union. You are the Union"

...when the "you" in the situation has NO DESIRE TO BE IN "UNION" WITH YOU AT ALL?!?

Then there's your demand of....

"You want RTW? Then give me equal time, equal access, and card check"

...why should you be GIVEN anything? You want "equal" access, then EARN it! Employers PAY for the privilege; why should YOU be allowed to mooch off of what THEY have earned? See a problem there? As for "giving" you "card check"; well, why not....but then you'll be inclined to give the OTHER SIDE that gift as well, right? I.e. - they can organize a "card check" and throw your ass out any time they choose via any means they can get "cards checked" as well. Sound like a plan to you? Could you even comprehend working under a situation where "equal" really WAS the effective word? Think YOU are prepared to pay the wages, build the facility, provide the parking lot, make the payroll, etc? Yeah...right!

But you ARE right about the necessity of "a fair playing field". It SHOULD be a "fair playing field". Employers - and those who choose NOT to be in unions - should be granted the SAME rights as those enjoyed by unions and union members. If unions and their members can arbitrarily terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, then WHY SHOULDN'T EMPLOYERS BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY?! And if unions can negotiate wages and conditions for themselves, then WHY SHOULDN'T INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES BE GIVEN THE SAME RIGHT? Why should those who ordinarily on the basis of the market value of their skills, their initiative, and their work ethic, receive better compensation be held to the lower "mean" bargained by the union for those who AREN'T economically worth as much to their employer? And if unions don't wish to work for wages offered,and can seek another employer at any time, then WHY SHOULDN'T EMPLOYERS BE GRANTED THE SAME RIGHT AND BE ALLOWED TO FIND OTHER WORKERS when THEY want as well? You want "fair"....OK, then let's HAVE it "fair"!

Perhaps now you're beginning to see that any TRULY "fair" situation might bite you in the ass big time! Unions - at least as they're constituted today - apparently can't exist under any situation that's truly "fair"; to survive, they have to be "given" things (i.e. - in the way that you demanded that things be "given" to you). And, again, if they can't justify their existence on their own hook, then WHAT'S THE POINT OF THEIR EXISTENCE? Why should the rest of society subsidize a privileged few who demand to be "given" privileges over and above what they've earned?

Lastly employers DO "put their money where their mouth is". That said, what have unions done? Have they put THEIR money up? In fact, it seems what they've done is having TAKEN the money that could have been used to FEED the mouths of literally millions of American workers and their families and figuratively pissed it away. How many employer companies have the Teamsters put out of business over the last few decades, for example? And how much of THEIR money did the Teamsters put up to preserve those jobs? Say when CFWY was going under - and a few measly million dollars could have saved 16,000 Teamster members jobs? Did the union put up ITS money where ITS mouth was then? How about the union's claims at Hostess Bakeries now; i.e - where it's demanding that ALL "stakeholders" make a sacrifice. Just what sort of "sacrifice" is the union willing to make? Will there be any REAL "concession" involved? Will any funds already tendered to the Teamsters make it's way back to Hostess? Will any Teamster lose what HE or SHE has ALREADY invested, like the investors and debt holders will? Or, to get a little closer to home, just how much "blood, sweat, and tears" (and money) have the Teamsters SERIOUSLY put into organizing FedEx? They've had close to FORTY YEARS to achieve something there...and they've yet to make even an EFFORT worthy of the name! And that's in terms of a situation that literally threatens the livelihood of the unions primary remaining block of members. How do you think the current UPS p/t'ers look at? Think they don't realize that any full time future they might have had with UPS is most probably being taken away on the back of FedEx vans? And don't you think they might resent the fact that guys like you are demanding that they PAY for the way they're getting screwed-over?

Sorry, but when it comes to "putting their money where their mouths are", it's been my experience that unions - and, unfortunately, guys like you - are real big on "mouth"...and real small when it comes to the "putting" up. Nor do I see any reason why you, or those like you, should be allowed to "represent" those who most assuredly don't want such "representation". And I sure as the Devil don't see any reason why those thus "represented" should be coerced into PAYING for the "privilege"!

Just the way I see it.

 

[hypocrisy]

crowbar;

Do you realize the arrogance of your claim of....

"I am the Union. You are the Union"

What a complete load of absolute crap you spew. While you see that statement as arrogant, what I'm saying to you is that I am the Union, YOU are the Union, WE are the Union; that the Union is not some separate entity acting on it's own.

As a UPS employee I can go on leave to serve the Union. I remain a UPS employee as if I never left. I would be paid by the Union, but my benefits and pension stay the same as if I was there. However, the pay does not nearly compare to what I make as a Feeder Driver so I'm not jumping at the bit to run over and become a BA just yet. But the people that do are sacrificing, putting their own money where their mouth is as you said. A bit clearer now?

So as some of the Teamsters Union officers are made up of UPS employees, others are from other companies. So WE are all the Union, the Employees, The Bargaining Unit one and the same. A bit clearer now?

I'm glad you brought up Hostess. So Hostess has been on the rocks and needs to negotiate concessions. The Company meets with the Union and asks for concessions. The Union listens to their case and might suggest alternatives. Ultimately, something is negotiated that they bring to their members who vote on it up or down. Now if the members, that are the Union, One and the Same decide they don't want to accept this then they don't have to. It's not the Union screwing them and putting them on the street. The members screw themselves because they don't accept reality.

So I'm not arrogant at all when I say I am the Union, You are the Union because we all have to accept what happens. If you don't want to be part of the Union, well hey when we walk out I guess you can just walk back in and enjoy that.

All the rest of the crap you spewed is a complete load of BS. You live in this fantasy land where if you load 3 trailers a night and your lazy ass coworker can only do 2 you're going to get a bigger chunk of the pie. Not going to happen. Gee, you might think Fedex, that isn't Union, would work that way but they don't. They get $10.50/hr regardless of how much work they do or how long they've been there. Wow, I'm unimpressed.

Oh but UPS must treat their management people better, after all they are non-union and can show in all those deforestation reports how productive they are. Well just take your fantasy filled ass over to the Partners section and see where it means, at best, a 1% difference. Again, I'm unimpressed.

So you can keep your idealistic fantasy, but I deal in the real world. You have yet to show me one example of a non-Union company coming anywhere near what the Teamsters have negotiated for us at UPS.

The reality is you cannot negotiate a better deal for yourself than the Union can do for all of us. I challenge you to go into any non-Union employer and demand $30/hr, a 40 hr guarantee, OT over 8 and after 40, fully paid cadillac health care, job protection and a grievance procedure, 7 weeks paid vacation, paid holidays, paid sick days, a Pension that will pay you handsomely for life and an excellent 401k plan. Oh, and throw in free Uniforms and a cleaning service too.

Just be sure to stuff a pillow down your pants for when they throw you out on your ass.

 

[brett636]

So, the bottom line is that it is easier on the Unions and the BAs and the Stewards in a Closed Shop State ... that makes sense.

Bingo! Nobody actually wants to have to work to sell the benefits of the union, they just want the company to shove a sheet of paper in front of all the new hires telling them they have to pay these dues or not work here. The BA's and Stewards can't be bothered to show up at these new hire orientations to let them know why they are paying these dues and for what. Its just asking too much.

 

[PobreCarlos]

crowbar;

It's not your stating "I am the union" that concerns me. Rather, the arrogance is in declaring "You are the union", when the "you" may not want to have anything to do with "the union". Your idea of "union" is one of FORCING those other individuals in the workplace to go along with what YOU declare to be the way to go. And that, my friend, is the height of arrogance.....especially since you're demanding that they PAY you as well!

And, of course, there's your other expression of arrogance, to wit...

"show me one example of a non-Union company coming anywhere near what the Teamsters have negotiated for us at UPS."

Fact is, there are employees at all sorts of non-union companies that do quite as well as the Teamster employees at UPS. Think ALL those McMansions you see in the suburbs belong to UNION members, do you? Do you think that there really aren't people out there qualified to get more ON THEIR OWN than they could achieve via Teamster "representation"? Well, how do you explain many of the employees of Eli Lilly (since this is a Hoosier State discussion). Or MicroSoft? Or Dow Chemical? The list could go on and on. Meanwhile, the list ALSO could go on and on of the companies the Teamsters have "negotiated" out of business. Again, how many union LTL companies are there left today? What's the number of Teamsters employed in the core transportation industry today compared to 35 or forty years ago? A million or so LESS? Is THAT the type of "negotiating" advantage the Teamsters offer? The absolute loss of ALL wages? ZERO compensation? Good one!

Fact is, the primary characteristic of being a Teamster over the last four decades has been job loss; if you were a Teamster, you were actually more likely than not to lose your job. Oh, some of those jobs have been replaced; there are new hotel maids and bedpan changing jobs and such that have been "organized" over the last forty years ago....but not nearly enough to replace, even in raw numbers, the jobs lost, nor do they offer the same level of compensation, But back to speaking of the bulk of the core Teamster transportation industry jobs? The majority of them are GONE. Take away UPS (and "no", I'm NOT ready to concede that the Teamsters were a POSITIVE factor in the growth of UPS; as I see it, the company grew in spite of the union, and the Teamsters were just carried along for the ride) , and they're pretty much ALL gone. Of course, many of the potential UPS jobs are gone as well; FedEx is covering that area (again, great representation in terms of the P/ters, 'eh?)

Then, speaking of "idealistic fantasy", let's bring your Hostess comments into play, re:....

"Ultimately, something is negotiated that they bring to their members who vote on it up or down. Now if the members, that are the Union, One and the Same decide they don't want to accept this then they don't have to. It's not the Union screwing them and putting them on the street. The members screw themselves because they don't accept reality."

You do see the problem there, don't you? I.e. - the MEMBERS who vote on it, up or down. The NON-members don't even get a vote! They have to watch while arrogant S.O.B.'s like you determine THEIR future! Under exclusive representation status granted to the union, they have to stand by and take it up the rear end while guys like you screw -'em over...AND PAY FOR THE PROCESS!!! Sounds "fair" to me [not!]

You say you "deal in the real world". OK, here's the "real world" for you. Despite all your claims as to what good the union does, etc., the bottom line is that you feel compelled TO FORCE WORKERS TO BELONG TO YOUR ORGANIZATION!!! Why can't you allow the good you claim the union does SPEAK FOR ITSELF and let the viability of the union STAND ON ITS OWN? Why don't you think you could show potential members something that would make them WANT to join voluntarily? Why do you feel the need to COERCE individuals into "joining" an organization you mockingly call a "union"? Sounds to me like you, YOURSELF, aren't entirely convinced by the alleged benefits of union membership. Why is that?

In the end, contrary to what you say, I don't believe individual workers should have to "accept what happens" if "what happens" is brought about by forced adherence to a plan imposed on them by people such as yourself. Nor do I think you and those like you should have the right to expropriate money from them on the basis of what YOU - not they! - want.

I have absolutely no problem with an organization that actually *IS* a union; that is, a collective of like-minded individuals VOLUNTARILY gathered together for purposes of collective bargaining and looking out for their common goals. But when guys like you insist that their fellow workers be FORCED to go your route, and then demand that they PAY for the "privilege" on top of it, I see a problem. Tyranny like that is just WRONG! This world has enough parasites and tin-pan dictators running around already. We don't need to encourage more of them.

 

[brown_trousers]

The truth is in the numbers. Despite almost half the country being eligible for RTW (23 states), union membership has remained steady showing less than 1% loss in unionizing workers.

Despite everyone claiming rtw being the demise of unions in the U.S., union membership hasnt suffered