Right-to-work law Discussion

One topic that came up in the recent GOP debate was the subject of Right to Work Laws that allow workers the option of joining Unions or not.

This seems the best of both worlds; short of full-force union-busting which destroys labor capital (much like breaking up a corporation destroys financial capital), it forces Unions to essentially compete with non-Union workers, and could prevent them from being either completely shut out, or taken over and rendered irrelevant.

Well the point of allowing unions to force membership was because corporations had the option of never hiring union guys. Since the point of a union is to pressure a corporation into paying them more money, why would you ever hire a more expensive union guy to a non-union guy willing to do the same work for less money? Much more profitable to pay your workers less money.

You (the business owner) could work with the Unions who provide the best workers, I suppose?

edited 23rd Sep '11 10:51:19 AM by Ratix

Given that we have, for the foreseeable future, far fewer jobs than people who need jobs, I can't picture any situation where employers WOULDN'T be able to choose the cream of the crop for the lowest pay possible, when given the choice to pick union or non-union. What are you going to do, hold out for better pay indefinitely while unemployed, or accept a lower paycheck than you think is fair?

Plus, once an employee is competent and hard working, is hard to differentiate quality beyond that. So whatever quality difference might exist with a union, it's not likely to be noticed in favour of just a dumping a few bad candidates from non-union sources.

As jobs became/become more and more standardized (we're getting to the point where you're seeing more and more white-collar jobs standardized), the actual economic effect of "quality of work" goes downhill. As long is someone is able to do the job they're asked to do, anything else is worth basically nothing.

In short, even in a full employment economy, we're moving away from a labor market where personal skill/experience/hard work is something that you will be rewarded for.

"Right-to-work" laws are zigging when we need to be zagging, in other words. They're going in the wrong direction.

Welp, I'm out of arguments then.

^ Well I suppose the best argument is that government regulations should level the field for everyone, rather than have private unions that only make it better for their members.

I'm okay with right to work laws. Unions are supposed to produce better workers that out stripe the benefit from lower paid numerous workers, so I guess they just suck at their job.

Deboss, um, did you happen to see Karmakin's last post before you got your raging union hate-on?

I did. And doing the job they're asked to do is what's important.

I'm alright with unions. They're there to protect the workers. But forcing them to join? Yeah, that's getting up in their private business and I am not okay with that. If you don't want to join a union (for whatever reason) you shouldn't have to. Forcing them to do so is unlawful coercion as far as I'm concerned.

Union existed to balance worker and management interest. Right-to-work law cause unbalance. Management have two entity to negotiate : union-worker and non-union-worker, which they can play against each other. Union on the other hand forced to negotiate with single-undivided management.

Also Union strongest weapon in negotiation is threat of strike. if non-union-worker do not join strike. Union become powerless.

Plus, look at the result : majority of right-of-work law states have workers with poorer wages. And Union is effectively destroyed in right-of-work states. right-to-work law is essensially legalizing company to hire scab to replace union worker.

And what about the people that literally cannot afford to take the time off to strike? What happens to them? Sometimes, people have a damn good reason for not wanting to tow the union's party line. They are, in union states, essentially forced to join a union and given no choice in the matter.

Yes, worker's rights are important. And it's the right of the individual worker to determine whether not they want to join a union. And, in union states, it's disgusting that they have any ability to prevent someone from getting hired. Or forcing them to get fired when they haven't done anything at work to deserve it. Unions can be bullies, too.

Union pays you during a strike.

However, as I've said, right-to-work is not the correct way of replacing unions. You don't go "there's some issues with unions, so let's destroy them thus returning us back to the labour problems of before". That's not a justifiable position.

If you wanted to elevate the status of ALL workers via regulation, that makes more sense.

edited 23rd Sep '11 10:30:43 PM by breadloaf

Well, I mean, the union doesn't have any more ability to prevent people from getting hired than an individual corporation would.

That's not the way I heard it. I was in a class once where this came up in a discussion. One girl was in a family of like six kids, and her father had to absolutely go back to work in order to provide for them. (I believe she said that her father had to talk with his union bosses in order to make that clear. I can imagine that there are some who aren't so... forgiving of extreme circumstances.)

You both ninja'ed me.

edited 23rd Sep '11 10:32:15 PM by AceofSpades

<Shrugs> In situations where corporations can play on desperation, they will prey on desperation. The "Unions prevent workers from going back to work and are therefore killing families" is saying "we should protect the situation that preys upon a worker's desperation."

Unions exist as voluntary organisations to allow for effective, fair collective-bargaining between employers and unionist employees within a free labour market. To intervene with the basic dynamics, by, for instance, forcing employers not to avoid hiring unionists, or forcing employees to join unions, undermines the basic idea of effective, fair collective-bargaining within the free labour market.

The problem is, there is no fairness in the system. short of a few friendly-minded CE Os, the vast majority of businesses, given a choice, would rather strip all power from unions possible and force 18 hour 7 days a week workdays on as few employees as they can in the hopes of maximizing output while minimizing payroll.

edited 24th Sep '11 5:26:14 AM by Midgetsnowman

You realize there's not a state in the country where 18 hour days for 7 days a week 365 days a year is legal right? Also, overtime law makes that far more costly than simply hiring more shifts.

So in conclusion, nice strawman of businesses.

edited 24th Sep '11 7:51:48 AM by MajorTom

Yeah, we encourage people not to work overtime if they don't have to for a reason. Time and a half gets expensive.

(sidelong glance at the software industry....) Rrrreeeaally, now?

In a situation where unions are legal and at liberty, and still can't get things done, that just means that the unions are doing it wrong. I agree that anti-union legislation from the government is unacceptable, but so is pro-union (i.e., anti-business) legislation. To introduce legislation favouring either side of work-place disputes means to remove fairness from the system - since, after all, what is fair in a capitalist economy is whatever the market settles upon, in the absence of manipulation running contrary to the self-determined behaviour of legitimate entities within that market.

@Major: Like corps obey the overtime laws.