Jump to content

More union busting in Wisconsin


Guest Raidne

Recommended Posts

Uh, just so everyone is aware, the rights unions are granted under labor relations in this country make unions themselves anti-free market by permitting them to monopolize labor. That's expressly recognized in the Clayton antitrust acts, which grants a specific, limited antitrust exemption for unions. You can't look at RTW laws in isolation from the rest of labor law.

That's true, it's a pathetic mishmash of regulations that should be thrown out entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, just so everyone is aware, the rights unions are granted under labor relations in this country make unions themselves anti-free market by permitting them to monopolize labor. That's expressly recognized in the Clayton antitrust acts, which grants a specific, limited antitrust exemption for unions. You can't look at RTW laws in isolation from the rest of labor law.

In an economic sense? No, not at all.

Non-unionzied labour is actually pretty anti-free-market though as a free market doesn't function in a situation with a huge power and information imbalance, like the one that exists with an individual and a company.

And here's some data from National Right to Work. More job creation, greater growth in wages and benefits, hihger household incomes, etc., higher purchasing power when higher cost of living in forced-unionization states is taken into account, etc.

http://www.nrtwc.org/FactSheets/RTWFactSheet.pdf

A group called "National Right to Work".....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW, can you back up your disdain for the EPI?

Did you read the EPI link yourself? Did you look up its mission, as stated on its website? Did you happen to see who is on its Board of Directors? Or did you just assume it was an unbiased organization because you liked its conclusions?

No, you didn't. Because if you had, you wouldn't have asked the question. So you basically called me out without bothering to read the link yourself.

Similarly, if you want to attack the study, attack the study -- Ezra linked it in his post.

You can't because the raw data isn't included, and the regressions they did aren't described in any detail. All you know is about the things they claim to have taken into account, but not how they did it. So it's useless because it is unverifiable.

But you don't really want to do put your money where your mouth is, do you? You'd rather just poo-poo it from the sidelines.

I posted a link from national right to work that contained all sorts of other economic data. Did you read it? Again, no you didn't. So exactly who is just poo-pooing from the sidelines here?

And before you accuse me of being selective in my sources, I acknowledge that national RTW is biased as well. I also stated that comparing specific data for private v. public jobs either way is almost impossible because there are simply too many factors that can't really be quantified.

Personally, I think the best thing to do is not compare jobs that are inherently different, but simply to look at the bottom line as to how RTW states are doing economically verses forced-unionization states. And I'll just say that you don't see a lot of RTW states pushing for unionization in order to attract jobs and businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um....

I give up...

Where is the analysis taking into account the bonuses that private sector employees get but which public sector employees don't?

Many wage analyses are based on tax reported W-2 data, which includes bonuses as income. And any study worth a shit will ask for bonus information if it is not based off W-2 data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its difficult to make competitive bids when you have to deal with the costs associated with the safety conditions and livable wages that unions tend to demand for their members. Changing the law to effectively lower wages for the middle class is generally not a winning message with the voters.

While it is true that this would certainly make it difficult for these groups to submit competitive bids, I would not say it has anything to do with safety regulations, or even livable wages. Safety is already regulated independently of unions, and the vast majority of large construction corporations maintain stringent health and safety standards, union or no, because it is in their best financial interests to limit their liability.

Most of the non-unionized companies in this size category also tend to base their wages on union standards anyway, unless they are hiring large groups of illegals. But the companies that are doing that are typically not competing for the larger jobs that unions tend to work on anyway. It's harder for a mega-construction corp. to get away with that.

I would say that the difference in costs would be at the back-end; healthcare, pensions, etc. Which, given the stiff competition for contracts, would almost certainly make any union bid uncompetitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this I assume you're referring to their sometimes hawkish neo-liberal imperialistic and ardent pro-Israeli leanings?

They are an interesting magazine that way. But there is no doubt that they lean left on domestic issues, pretty heavily.

Yeah they beated the wardrums quite loudly for the Iraq invasion. I would characterrize their domestic stance as centrist though. If we're to consider heavily left-leaning publications, it has nothing on the Nation, Counterpunch or MotherJones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the hate for unions. Do conservatives really think that unions are what is wrong with the country? That it is the unions that are responsible for the failed economy? I know that people like to have someone easy to blame when things go bad, but that is pretty lazy thinking.

The true issue is all people are selfish assholes to some extent. We don't want to pay for things we don't like or see any benefit from. Some of us grow out of it and realize that everything doesn't go the way you want. I think that this proposal is bad because if any group needs union protections it is public employees. They are subject to extreme changes in their employer's philosophies with very little input, other than voting. Most corporations don't have extreme changes in policy like then government does.

I know that most of the supporters of this law have some hatred of unions I don't comprehend, but if you really, truly believe that unions are the reason for all the problems in the country then I think you need to read some history and see the good things that unions have done.

P.S. I am not a union member and regularly receive anti-union propaganda from my employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the hate for unions. Do conservatives really think that unions are what is wrong with the country? That it is the unions that are responsible for the failed economy? I know that people like to have someone easy to blame when things go bad, but that is pretty lazy thinking.

I think they are only part of the picture, and to the extent that is true in private industry, management shares blame for at least acceding to demands that were not sustainable in the long term, such as in the auto and rubber industries.

P.S. I am not a union member and regularly receive anti-union propaganda from my employer.

Hey, I wonder if I wrote any of that....

Had a unionization drive at a client about a month ago. Card signings, etc. So I sent management a rather long list of "Do's and Don'ts", to make sure they didn't do anything illegal, then wrote a speech for the head guy to give verbatim to employees. The drive collapsed the next day. Woohoo!!!

Oh, why? Because the union organizers predictably were lying about authorization cards. They told employees that the cards didn't mean anything except that they could get an election, when in fact, the cards (in very tiny print) also stated that the signer was authorizing the union to be their collective bargaining representative. Oops! Happens all the time....

They also forgot to tell these employees that they would be required to pay dues and to join the union even if individual employees ultimately decided to vote against it.

On the other hand, I have another unionized client that has a great relationship with its union because the union president is a smart guy. They don't make a fuss when bad apples get shitcanned, and they make reasonable demands so the plant stays competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Unfortunately, like everywhere else, a lot of the people who are the leaders of union organizations are idiots. They are, if anything, prone to the same kind of dumb populist impulses of every other type of election.

That last bit is such crap - I mean, really, you think you're going to continue to have the support of people if you spring the payments on them?

I don't think that a union has to win in order for the system to work. If the employees are happy with the employer, fine, no union. It's just necessary that the option is there in case somebody else takes over or something changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are only part of the picture, and to the extent that is true in private industry, management shares blame for at least acceding to demands that were not sustainable in the long term, such as in the auto and rubber industries.

Hey, I wonder if I wrote any of that....

Had a unionization drive at a client about a month ago. Card signings, etc. So I sent management a rather long list of "Do's and Don'ts", to make sure they didn't do anything illegal, then wrote a speech for the head guy to give verbatim to employees. The drive collapsed the next day. Woohoo!!!

Oh, why? Because the union organizers predictably were lying about authorization cards. They told employees that the cards didn't mean anything except that they could get an election, when in fact, the cards (in very tiny print) also stated that the signer was authorizing the union to be their collective bargaining representative. Oops! Happens all the time....

They also forgot to tell these employees that they would be required to pay dues and to join the union even if individual employees ultimately decided to vote against it.

On the other hand, I have another unionized client that has a great relationship with its union because the union president is a smart guy. They don't make a fuss when bad apples get shitcanned, and they make reasonable demands so the plant stays competitive.

We haven't had any actual union reps try to get in the building primarily because most of my coworkers don't care enough to unionize. The company does a relatively good job of taking care of it's employees, so there is no push to unionize.

Unless you do movies I don't think we have seen your work. We get a movie produced for the uniformed about what union is and what it does in regards to your rights. My company already takes forever and a day to fire bad employees, unless you use racial slurs or sexual harassment. Then you are gone that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that a union has to win in order for the system to work. If the employees are happy with the employer, fine, no union. It's just necessary that the option is there in case somebody else takes over or something changes.

That is a very good point. Most of the "anti-union" stuff I do is teaching non-union employers how to treat employees right so that they don't want a union in the first place. Just giving them a way to bitch about complaints and believe someone is listening is of enormous benefit. Too many employers think that encouraging bitching helps unions, when in fact, the opposite is true. But if your employer is generally fair, all a union does is take some of your paycheck as dues and give a lot of little wanna-be dictators a feeling of self-inportance as union stewards/officers.

By the way, I posted this in the U.S. politics thread, but here's a pretty interesting article about Walker and his history with unions. One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that this guy had no problem winning election and reelection even in a traditionally Democratic jurisdiction, and has been through this type of protest before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904205_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011021705923

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if your employer is generally fair, all a union does is take some of your paycheck as dues and give a lot of little wanna-be dictators a feeling of self-inportance as union stewards/officers.

That's a mighty big "if".

Union is also a sort of insurance. If the admins decide to be dicks, e.g. when the company got bought out, or a new set of managers are hired, then it'd be too late to unionize.

By the way, I posted this in the U.S. politics thread, but here's a pretty interesting article about Walker and his history with unions. One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that this guy had no problem winning election and reelection even in a traditionally Democratic jurisdiction, and has been through this type of protest before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904205_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011021705923

What can I say. Milwaukee is weird sometimes. What works there don't always work in Madison. It might still work for Walker. I hope not. But just because he was re-elected in Milwaukee doesn't mean that he'll pull that off as a Governor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the hate for unions. Do conservatives really think that unions are what is wrong with the country? That it is the unions that are responsible for the failed economy?

Not at all.

It's a well established fact that the EVIL RICH and BIG CORPORATION are what is wrong with the country and what is responsible for the economy.

I know that people like to have someone easy to blame when things go bad, but that is pretty lazy thinking.

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Union is also a sort of insurance. If the admins decide to be dicks, e.g. when the company got bought out, or a new set of managers are hired, then it'd be too late to unionize.

Unions have no right to bargain over a decision to sell a company or hire new managers. They can't even bargain over a decision to close up shop. The only bargaining right they have in that context is the right to bargain over the effects of the closure, which is sort of like kissing your sister.

What can I say. Milwaukee is weird sometimes. What works there don't always work in Madison. It might still work for Walker. I hope not. But just because he was re-elected in Milwaukee doesn't mean that he'll pull that off as a Governor.

Ultimately, I think it will depend on whether he can deliver on his budget goals. If he manages to balance his budget without raising taxes, and the economy of the state otherwise picks up, he'll probably end up winning. Or at least serving out his term.

The ripple effect of this is what is going to be really interesting. If he gets what he wants, then cities and counties are going to have a much easier time with their own budgets, though that will likely cause some unhappiness among those workers as well. But voters may also take into account what happens at other governmental levels in evaluating his overall performance. It's certainly a risk, but I'm not sure it's a greater political risk than keeping things the same and just raising taxes to cover the shortfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a well established fact that the EVIL RICH and BIG CORPORATION are what is wrong with the country and what is responsible for the economy.

You can try to shrug it off, but if you can come up with any corresponding evidence that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans as well as tax breaks and loopholes for the biggest corporations are not a major reason for the last few years of economic woes, I'm listening. But you can't, because that would cause you to ditch the script you so righteously claim not to go by (yet so often use).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all.

It's a well established fact that the EVIL RICH and BIG CORPORATION are what is wrong with the country and what is responsible for the economy.

..... Yes, yes they are in large part. Lax regulation on corporations and terrible corporate decision making is a huge part of what is wrong with the economy right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got me a bit worried here. I recently signed a card that was allegedly only to eventually lead to an option to unionize. I don't recall any fine print, but I'm not sure...

Seriously? Check it out if you've still got a copy. Or ask to see the one you signed. If they'll let you.

Almost all of them say that. Put it this way -- I wrote that speech without ever having seen one of these particular cards because I know most of them say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the GOP Assembly in Wisconsin is starting to play some hardball.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116680594.html

Madison Republicans on a state Senate committee approved a bill Tuesday to require voters to show ID at the polls, in their latest effort to entice Democrats to end their boycott of Senate proceedings.

The committee made significant changes to the bill in a meeting that included a bizarre element. Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) participated in the meeting by phone, but Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), the committee chairwoman, refused to let him vote because he and the 13 other Senate Democrats left the state Thursday.

Senators routinely participate in committee meetings by phone and are allowed to debate, offer amendments and vote on measures. But Lazich said she wasn't allowing Erpenbach to vote because he had an invalid reasons for being absent.

"I won't extend courtesies for unethical behavior," Lazich told Erpenbach.

And now -- and this bit is rather clever -- they're cancelling direct deposit for Senators and issuing paychecks only on the Senate floor. Well, no work, no pay....

http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/02/senate-gop-leaders-requiring-missing.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...