Unions

drscott

New member
Let me give my take on unions as I have sat on both sides of a bargaining table. When I first entered the work force at 18 I had a job that required me to join the union. I really didn't mind as it paid very well for an essentially unskilled labor type of job hanging steel on a high rise. My first encounter was very positive. Our union rep. was on the job site frequently and his usual speal was this is a union job; we get paid the higher wages because we do it better, faster, and cleaner than our competitors. If you aren’t willing to do that than you have no place working here. He would not back someone who was not performing their job and had no qualms about letting dead weight go. Move forward a few years working in the mines in NM, I had just the opposite view from the union there. It seemed their whole lot in life was keeping the laziest employees their job. The unions held up my advancement because of seniority issues. All promotions were done by seniority instead of ability. This inequality finally prompted me to quit and go back to school so I could work for myself. Over the years I have been both self employed and worked in mid and upper level management for several fortune 500 companies. I have had over 50 employees in my own businesses, so I do have an understanding of bargaining for wages and also the costs of having employees. With the way unions have gone the last 20 years, I would never allow employees to unionize. I would close a business before that happened. If unions would go back to being about quality of work instead of protectionism I wouldn't have this attitude. And if you look at wages, the public sector has done much better with or without unions than the private sector as far as wages keeping up with inflation. In fact I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to work for the state of federal government in today’s market.

drscott
 
Good post. Today's government employees have better benefits and in many cases better wages than the private sector, but without the risks of being employed in the private sector.
 
I am curious how people can think that the unions have that much control over our lives. The union membership is about 11% of the population, how can 11% have that much control? How can you be that afraid of the power of 11% of the nation?

As to today's government employees, very few federal employees are under collective bargaining, their wages and benefits are derived from other sources and are set by law, not collective bargaining. There are some state that have unions, but the employees have no strike and no collective bargaining, they are called unions when they are actually more of an association. They have no control over the salary, raises, benefits and they cannot strike.

Is it the fear of the fear of the unknown that you hate these associations? Or is just something to witch about?
 
Dogcatcher you might want to look at a few of the other threads currently near the top of the forum.

36% of public employees belong to unions.

Many states, including WI are union shop states and require you to pay union dues to keep your job. In many states they DO bargain for salary, raises, benefits and they can strike.

Unions are the biggest political contributors and have been for a number of election cycles. They have ENORMOUS influence over all of our lives through their bought and paid for politicians.

TX is a right to work state and what you say is more correct, but the same can't be said elsewhere.
 
Still nationwide only 11% belong to unions, I cannot believe the unions provide that much more PAC money compared to large business PAC's or to even the non profit PAC's such as the NRA. I think all of the union hating is barking at the "wrong tree", the other PAC's cause a lot more damage.

36% of public employees, how do they control the other 64%? To me it would seem impossible, except for the fact I have learned over the last 60 plus years that union people do tend to be more organized and willing to put their money and time where their mouth is. While the non union tend to witch about things and let the "other" guy do what they think is right. That is why 36% can control the other 64%, the non union people can either get off of their duffs and do something or let the status quo continue.

Union dues are not the source of the PAC money, the PAC money is contributions over and above union dues. Guess where this comes from the, the union members, because they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. You want to fight back, then create a PAC and collect more than the unions. It should be easy, there is 89% of the population to get the funds from, if they really care.
 
Quote:I cannot believe the unions provide that much more PAC money compared to large business PAC's or to even the non profit PAC's such as the NRA.

9 of the top 15 donors are unions http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php





Quote:36% of public employees, how do they control the other 64%?

That's nationwide. In some areas it's virtually 100% because the worker has no choice legally but to pay his dues. It's the only way he can get and keep the job. Many states do NOT have right-to-work laws like we do in TX.

Then there's the support from national unions. In WI for instance there were/are union "protesters" bused in from out of state. Being union workers I guess they could take the days off without losing any pay or getting fired.






Quote:Union dues are not the source of the PAC money, the PAC money is contributions over and above union dues. Guess where this comes from the, the union members, because they are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Again, I think you are assuming that the situation in TX where we have right-to-work laws, is the same all over. It's not.

In many non-right-to-work states political funds come from dues. The union member can ask for a refund through a long and arduous process if he is willing to risk retribution, but the dues are taken out of his paycheck at the source.

Look at a couple of "before and after" cases for an indicator of the difference. When “paycheck protection” laws were passed and teachers were given the chance to opt out of paying for the political causes of education unions, the number of teachers participating in Utah dropped from 68 percent to 6.8 percent, and the number of represented teachers contributing in Washington dropped from 82 percent to 6 percent.

Amazing what a difference it makes to give workers the choice to belong or not belong to a union, and even more the choice of whether or not to include political contributions with the dues they send in themselves (instead of having it taken out of their paychecks).
 
Originally Posted By: NM LeonQuote:I cannot believe the unions provide that much more PAC money compared to large business PAC's or to even the non profit PAC's such as the NRA.

9 of the top 15 donors are unions http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

That proves what I said earlier, the union members believe in what they say and put their money where thier mouth is. Don't tell me they make so much that they can throw it away, I know better, but they use their money to farther what they beleive in. That is more than the other 89% of the country.
 
Originally Posted By: NM Leon

Quote:Union dues are not the source of the PAC money, the PAC money is contributions over and above union dues. Guess where this comes from the, the union members, because they are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Again, I think you are assuming that the situation in TX where we have right-to-work laws, is the same all over. It's not.

In many non-right-to-work states political funds come from dues. The union member can ask for a refund through a long and arduous process if he is willing to risk retribution, but the dues are taken out of his paycheck at the source.

Look at a couple of "before and after" cases for an indicator of the difference. When “paycheck protection” laws were passed and teachers were given the chance to opt out of paying for the political causes of education unions, the number of teachers participating in Utah dropped from 68 percent to 6.8 percent, and the number of represented teachers contributing in Washington dropped from 82 percent to 6 percent.

Amazing what a difference it makes to give workers the choice to belong or not belong to a union, and even more the choice of whether or not to include political contributions with the dues they send in themselves (instead of having it taken out of their paychecks).

The law about union dues being used in PAC money is federal law. So you are me telling the federal boys are letting the union dues go to PAC's? I seriously doubt that, the feds check the unions too often to let that happen. Been there seen that and know a lot better.
 
FWIW- I have worked both sides as well. There is both good and bad things to say about Unions.
It`s a shame that politics are so much a part of it.IMO
I also feel that the party that generally supports them has also done much to hurt them in regards to manufacturing exmple. EPA regs and such. The work force hurt themselves.
Nebraska is a Right to Work State, there are two (Main) Public Utilities one is union one is not..the union workers have a better deal.
 
Quote:The law about union dues being used in PAC money is federal law. So telling the federal boys are letting the union dues go to PAC's? I seriously doubt that, the feds check the unions too often to let that happen. Been there seen that and know a lot better.


No, not exactly.

First, according to polls, 67% of union members are unaware that their dues are being used for political purposes.


You are right that it's against federal law for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization.

However...the Federal Election Commission audited some well-known national union PACs. They found that one national union PAC could not produce Payroll Deduction Authorization Forms (PDA) for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 80% of the contributions the FEC examined, and another at least 67%.

I couldn't find ANY that were "clean".

I'd say that suggests a widespread problem: It seems that union PACs are commonly making political contributions to candidates with employees' dues money taken without their written authorizations.

Against the law? Yes, but the "penalties" are none to minor.

Here's just a few of the audits:
ILA/COPE, LIUNA, SEIU, and you can research many more at the Federal Election Commision's website.


Have fun.
 
In addition, there's no law at all prohibiting union dues from being used for "issue advertising" and lobbying. Both of which are heavily slanted (97%) to the Dems.

In the Supreme Court case, Communication Workers v. Beck (1988), workers cannot be forced to donate to political causes, and are entitled to demand a refund of the portion of their dues spent on politics.

However, unions make it very difficult for workers to exercise their Beck rights. They put in obstacles such as accepting Beck requests only 30 days out of the year, and often refuse to honor the requests unless workers file charges with the National Labor Rela­tions Board. They also often require members to resign from the union if they do exer­cise their Beck rights.

In other words, while workers theoreti­cally can opt out their union's political campaigns, in practice that's oftentimes not a realistic option.
 
Those audits were for 1999 and 2000, that was 11 and 12 years ago. Looks like the unions must have updated their accounting programs since you did not list anything in the last 10 years.
 
Actually the audits were released in 2004, and are the latest available from the FEC.

Do you have anything more recent to refute them?
 
Leon here is some stats for you to Look at!!!!!

Texas per capita income $19,617 Right To Work State
Ohio per capita income $21,003
Alabama per carita income $18,189 Right To Work State
Indiana per capita incom $$21,271
South Carolina per capita income $18,795 Right To Work
Wisconson per capita income $$20,397

These stats come from 1999.

So tell me how a Union doesnt help????

Texas 24.78 Million Population
Ohio 11.54 Million
Alabama 4.7 Million
Indiana 6.4 Million
South Carolina 9.3 Million
Wisconson 5.6 Million

More people in the State and make less money ?????
Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!

I had too Edit this as to say that there are unions in Right
To Work States but they are the minority and not the
majority.
 
Last edited:
But I guess Leon if you put all the money that thoughs wetbacks are making unreported in your state I'm sure that that would make you "KING" of the Per Capita!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: Stumper4268Leon here is some stats for you to Look at!!!!!



Stats aren't always what they're cracked up to be Stumper...

ND - $17,769 - Right to Work State

You'll find ND way down at #42 on the list.

Fact... There are more millionaires per capita in ND, than any other state in the nation. Don't see that in the number reflected above do you.

Information given the US Census Bureau is voluntarily given, it is not required, and many people, especially those who are self employed refuse to report their income in Census Bureau Questionaire. Therefore the statistical data set compiled by the US Census Bureau is not altogether accurate. And, the IRS does not release such information.

 
Last edited:
Quote:I looked, and but I found no later audit reports, so the unions must generally be following the law.

No, it means that either

1. They haven't been audited

2. The audits haven't been released yet

The FEC doesn't audit because somebody is breaking the law. They find out whether or not somebody is breaking the law because they audited.



Here's one for you Stumper:

per capita income in WI $36,822.

Average teacher salary and benefits in Milwaukee $100,000.

The union helps a lot right? Well...not so much when you consider that it's all those $36,822 folks that are PAYING those $100k folks.

You can see why there's a bunch of us taxpayer "employers" who might think the PUBLIC unions at least aren't so good.
 
I really "believe" they have not been audited. Just like I believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny

So basically you are stilled scared of 11% of the people, the union members have more power than you because they are better organized and they are willing to spend their money to farther their agenda.
 
Originally Posted By: NM LeonHere's one for you Stumper:

per capita income in WI $36,822.

Average teacher salary and benefits in Milwaukee $100,000.

The union helps a lot right? Well...not so much when you consider that it's all those $36,822 folks that are PAYING those $100k folks.

You can see why there's a bunch of us taxpayer "employers" who might think the PUBLIC unions at least aren't so good.



Tenure.jpg
 
Back
Top