Minnesota Right To Work

[arfink]

I dunno if any of you have been keeping up with MN politics, or if this is even applicable to anyone else in the country, but in my state our fearless (or at least uninhibited) leaders have been considering what they are calling a "right to work" law. One of the only clear provisions the law spells out concerns unions.

Basically, you no longer need a majority of workers at a business to vote to set up a union, but to balance that out, anyone can opt to not be in said union, and if I read the bill correctly, it would also allow employers to vary the level of compensation and accommodation being given to employees based on whether they choose to be in the union or not.

Now, besides the obvious panic from the union leadership, I have noticed something very interesting: every one of my co-workers who is in the bakery union with me would happily ditch the union in a heartbeat if we could also keep our jobs. The union takes a considerable portion of our paychecks and gives the part timers nothing in return. They only seem to be interested in preserving the pensions and health care plans of the old-timers, and refuse to do anything to help people who have less than 10 years with the union. Normally I'd be OK with this, but after union dues get taken out of my paycheck I'm effectively working for less than minimum wage with no tangible benefit. I intend to get out of the union as fast as I can, should it be allowable.

But, there is also one nagging problem about this bill for me, and it's the idea that businesses can and will just close down every single union in the state. And in an economy where there is very steep competition for jobs it does not seem particularly safe for laborers to throw away the ability to negotiate with businesses.

Of course, I may be totally wrong in my analysis of the situation, since I have been hearing the tale from two highly polarized sources: the BCTGM Local 22 Union (my union) and the local newspaper. Any ideas on this?

[4588686]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1331352529' post='2398532']
I dunno if any of you have been keeping up with MN politics, or if this is even applicable to anyone else in the country, but in my state our fearless (or at least uninhibited) leaders have been considering what they are calling a "right to work" law. One of the only clear provisions the law spells out concerns unions.

Basically, you no longer need a majority of workers at a business to vote to set up a union, but to balance that out, anyone can opt to not be in said union, and if I read the bill correctly, it would also allow employers to vary the level of compensation and accommodation being given to employees based on whether they choose to be in the union or not.

Now, besides the obvious panic from the union leadership, I have noticed something very interesting: every one of my co-workers who is in the bakery union with me would happily ditch the union in a heartbeat if we could also keep our jobs. The union takes a considerable portion of our paychecks and gives the part timers nothing in return. They only seem to be interested in preserving the pensions and health care plans of the old-timers, and refuse to do anything to help people who have less than 10 years with the union. Normally I'd be OK with this, but after union dues get taken out of my paycheck I'm effectively working for less than minimum wage with no tangible benefit. I intend to get out of the union as fast as I can, should it be allowable.

But, there is also one nagging problem about this bill for me, and it's the idea that businesses can and will just close down every single union in the state. And in an economy where there is very steep competition for jobs it does not seem particularly safe for laborers to throw away the ability to negotiate with businesses.

Of course, I may be totally wrong in my analysis of the situation, since I have been hearing the tale from two highly polarized sources: the BCTGM Local 22 Union (my union) and the local newspaper. Any ideas on this?
[/quote]

I've lived in the south all my life and hence have no experience with unions. I do know that when I was a 16 year old I was working 8 hour (or more) shifts with no break (either for lunch or just to rest from pushing in carts for the last six hours). Trying to organize a union was a firable offense. I seems like there is a lot of cronyism in union labor but the picture without them isn't very nice either. Workers need to have the ability to organize to demand dignified working conditions. I have the inclination that unions need reform but I suspect that there measures are designed to make unions fail.

[arfink]

Well, federal law now takes the place of union pressure on businesses. Firing someone for organizing a union is a felony, and you're required by law to give breaks of 1/2 hour for every 8 hours worked. But yeah, I agree with you that this doesn't seem to fix any problems.

[4588686]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1331355003' post='2398549']
Well, federal law now takes the place of union pressure on businesses. Firing someone for organizing a union is a felony, and you're required by law to give breaks of 1/2 hour for every 8 hours worked. But yeah, I agree with you that this doesn't seem to fix any problems.
[/quote]

I know what the law is, at least with regard to breaks, but there is a difference between having rights in theory and actually having the power to take them. Although when I worked there I was under the impression that only minors were entitled to a half hour break every 8 hours. I'm not sure about the right to form unions. I know that when I worked at Food Lion it was made very clear to me that (paraphrasing) 'Food Lion does not support unions because they turn labor and management against each other.' It was made very clear to us that Food Lion would not tolerate activity that created antagonism between workers and management. I'm sure your right about the general federal law but I'm also pretty sure that the law is weak enough that, combined with state law in a region that is famously hostile to unions, makes any organizing rights quite weak.

I would just say that you all should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Hasan

[mcts]

They just passed this in Indiana. My dad is part of a union and apparently RTW smells of elderberries.

Edited March 10, 2012 by mcts

[4588686]

[quote name='mcts' timestamp='1331360230' post='2398569']
They just passed this in Indiana. My dad is part of a union and apparently RTW smells of elderberries.
[/quote]

Well, I mean it's basically designed to exploit a basic aspect of game theory (and bargaining theory). The problem of free riders. Everyone at the company would get union benefits, whether you're in the union or not, so why would you ever pay union dues? So I think the hope here is that they can cause a collapse by taking away the one measure the unions have to combat free rider problems.

[arfink]

Well, I don't really have any say in the matter, since it's obvious our lawmakers will ignore us unless you've got a fat stack o cash ready for their next campaign. Or a super-mega-yacht with a swimming pool of champagne to let them borrow for their next party.

Assuming they pass RTW, would it be morally wrong of me to stop paying my union dues? It would be like getting a raise if I stopped paying them. My particular company hasn't been behaving in a predatory manner to our union, though I guess it's possible they will. What think you?

[Winchester]

I've worked all but one of my jobs in a right to work state. I got breaks. Compulsory union membership enforced by government is unacceptable.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331355334' post='2398550']


I know what the law is, at least with regard to breaks, but there is a difference between having rights in theory and actually having the power to take them. Although when I worked there I was under the impression that only minors were entitled to a half hour break every 8 hours. I'm not sure about the right to form unions. I know that when I worked at Food Lion it was made very clear to me that (paraphrasing) 'Food Lion does not support unions because they turn labor and management against each other.' It was made very clear to us that Food Lion would not tolerate activity that created antagonism between workers and management. I'm sure your right about the general federal law but I'm also pretty sure that the law is weak enough that, combined with state law in a region that is famously hostile to unions, makes any organizing rights quite weak.

I would just say that you all should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[/quote]I know what you mean. When I was a field archaeologist, we'd joke about the OSHA regs that we're more theoretical than not. We didn't have to work quite as hard on the days it was so hot there were advisories not to work outside. . . Normally the standard "quota" was 20 holes a day per 2-person team on a survey site (meter deep, half a meter square, every 30 meters). Can't say I enjoyed that summer. I like field archaeology, but not the contract archaeology.

[CatherineM]

Oklahoma lost 200,000 union jobs after RTW was passed.

[cmotherofpirl]

When the steel mills were big here in the Pittsburgh area, workers had free health care, and with enough time could demand 13 week paid vacations every so many years. They maintained an excellent standard of living.
You couldn't get in the craft unions such as the carpenters unless you already knew someone in there, in effect a closed elite shop. Companies were always pressured to only have union labor or they could be forced out.
On the other hand, I know of cases where unions try to negotiate contracts with government entities and they really play hardball and break contracts at will, or refuse to negotiate for months at a time. I also know of unions that file grievances at the drop of a hat. For instance in some place you cannot volunteer to clean up litter in a public area because it violates a contract, the local workers file a grievance and the city must pay fines. Imagine having to look at garbage that you are not [i] permitted[/i] to clean up.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331406885' post='2398722']
I've worked all but one of my jobs in a right to work state. I got breaks. Compulsory union membership enforced by government is unacceptable.
[/quote]

I haven't made my mind up about right to work laws. I'm suspicious of them but have no set opinions. I guess I would ask why someone couldn't simply argue that mandatory union membership is a factor to be weighed before applying for a job just like shiitake mushroom health benefits or inconsiderate hours are when the negative aspects of employment come from management. If you don't want to have to pay union dues then don't apply for jobs that are unioned.

[4588686]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1331410368' post='2398741']
Oklahoma lost 200,000 union jobs after RTW was passed.
[/quote][quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331415553' post='2398773']
When the steel mills were big here in the Pittsburgh area, workers had free health care, and with enough time could demand 13 week paid vacations every so many years. They maintained an excellent standard of living.
You couldn't get in the craft unions such as the carpenters unless you already knew someone in there, in effect a closed elite shop. Companies were always pressured to only have union labor or they could be forced out.
On the other hand, I know of cases where unions try to negotiate contracts with government entities and they really play hardball and break contracts at will, or refuse to negotiate for months at a time. I also know of unions that file grievances at the drop of a hat. For instance in some place you cannot volunteer to clean up litter in a public area because it violates a contract, the local workers file a grievance and the city must pay fines. Imagine having to look at garbage that you are not [i] permitted[/i] to clean up.
[/quote]

I have no substantive knowledge about unions or union laws (at least modern law pertaining to unions) so these seem like good points for reform to me. But reading CatherineM's observation sort of confirms my suspicious that most legislation designed to 'reform' unions is really designed to break down the ability of workers to have substantive protection from management.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331433568' post='2398920']
I haven't made my mind up about right to work laws. I'm suspicious of them but have no set opinions. I guess I would ask why someone couldn't simply argue that mandatory union membership is a factor to be weighed before applying for a job just like shiitake mushroom health benefits or inconsiderate hours are when the negative aspects of employment come from management. If you don't want to have to pay union dues then don't apply for jobs that are unioned.
[/quote]

In many places however if you are a blue-collar worker and want a good paying job, you have no choice but to join the union and let them garnish your wages for dues.

[ironmonk]

I think unions were needed a long time ago... now, from what I see, they seem to be democrat tools to broad their power over blue collar employees.

Businesses are not like they were 50 years ago, good workers are hard to come by and businesses need to fight to keep them. I live in Florida, no unions... I am from Indiana when they had unions. I remember people getting beat because they crossed the line so they could feed their five kids because the $40 a week from the union wouldn't put food on the table. The people who run the unions lived nice during those strikes, all with lies to the little guy. But I digress... back to businesses... people who can't do a job need to be let go so they can find something that they can be productive at and grow... Businesses lose a lot of money with turnover, for the typical office worker, it can cost $5000-10000 in lost productivity. For blue collar production work it's all over the board, depending on quality issues, injuries with new hires, etc...

Right to work is a good thing... think of it as a mother bird pushing a baby bird out of the nest... people will adapt and find a way if they're not allowed to coast. Human nature 101.

God Bless & Pax Christi!
ironmonk