US Politics: Mark your calendars

[TrackerNeil]

Well, it'd be a great step forward if the ruling goes certain ways. Others, not so much. So it's a "could be great, but also could be worse" situation right now. The current court definitely has its for-sure detractors, like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Scalia wrote the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which lifted the laws against homosexual sodomy. So you can bet him, and by extension Thomas, will be against anything resembling equal rights for gay people. Alito will probably vote in line, too. I'm less certain about Roberts' take on social issues like this. Their decision on the Affirmative Action case from University of Texas may shed some light on this.

I have my hopes in Kennedy, really, who has a track record of supporting gay rights. We'll see if those hopes bear out, but I did read one very interesting comment from a legal scholar (I forget which). In upholding DOMA, said this scholar, Kennedy would have to rule that there is some compelling interest for the federal government to treat same-sex marriages differently from opposite-sex marriages. So, he went on, Kennedy has to decide if he wants to sign on to Plessy vs. Ferguson or Brown vs. Board of Education. Interesting.

Of course, Kennedy did vote to strike down the ACA in its entirety, so clearly he's capable of radical action. We just have to hope he gets all radical on our side.

[Shryke]

Also, Shryke, the Economic Policy Institute's briefing paper IS a lot more legit than the crappy policy piece from Notre Dame or whoever's "Labor Studies Department" that Fez linked, so thanks for that if that's the particular footnote out the 31 on that page you were talking about.

Is STILL doesn't show the results for unionized employees though - just all employees (-3.2%) and nonunionized employees (-3%). Clearly it's higher for unionized employees, but I'm curious what the extent of the difference is?

I also wonder why? I bet it's what Kay said - unions just stop making any effort in open shop states - probably because it's not where the money is.

The why is purely academic. As is your continued focus on exactly what it does to unions.

It lowers wages, lowers benefits and doesn't offer any gains for the state. Thus, it exists as a right-wing agenda based on some silly philosophical fluff and their hatred of unions.

[lokisnow]

That's the real question here - is a national economy where entry-level workers in Kentucky make $21/hr the economy we want in a global marketplace or not? An entry-level attorney with six figures of student loan debt starts at $50-60K at my office in DC.

that sounds like ouch, particularly with at least 1200/month in loan payments, but don't forget to mention those sweet government benefits worth millions and millions, right. :-p

as for the union stuff, I think it's a bit that in non-right to work states union reps have an easy job. their job becomes hard if the state is right to work. Since all people are inherently lazy, they want the easy job where they can surf the internet all day, rather than a hard job representing employee grievances and organizing new shops to sign on to the union.

[Tempra]

Well, it'd be a great step forward if the ruling goes certain ways. Others, not so much. So it's a "could be great, but also could be worse" situation right now. The current court definitely has its for-sure detractors, like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Scalia wrote the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which lifted the laws against homosexual sodomy. So you can bet him, and by extension Thomas, will be against anything resembling equal rights for gay people. Alito will probably vote in line, too. I'm less certain about Roberts' take on social issues like this. Their decision on the Affirmative Action case from University of Texas may shed some light on this.

I don't think the University of Texas case will be very informative. Kennedy voted to strike down Michigan Law School's AA plan in Gratz and dissented in Grutter, which upheld the diversity rationale used by Michigan's undergraduate admission's office. It is doubtful that he has switched his position. Since 2003, Alito replaced O'Connor, the swing vote in Grutter, and John "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" Roberts replaced Chief Justice Rehnquist.

[Kelli Fury]

They are bad for how much money the union brings in, and it costs money to represent people, etc. But all the people who don't pay dues don't need representation anymore either. So it balances. But the union just sees its loss of revenue. They can do more or less and change their expenses anytime. They can also raise dues on existing members. My union just did this. So of course the union is against RTW - that doesn't prove that RTW is bad for unions or labor. Leaving the union is - IMO - bad for the people who choose to do so, but that's their choice, and it should be. I shouldn't get to force my coworker to pay money for something they don't support because I think I know how to make their decisions for them better than they could. And that is what compulsory union membership is. If you want people to join the union and give you money for representation, you should represent them well.

It is bad for the amount of money they have, but it is worse for the leverage they have in negotiations with employers. If you are negotiating with half your workforce you are just in a stronger position than if it was the whole workforce. That is why opponents of RTW feel it takes away the only advantage employees in highly unionized sectors have over employers. Most union work is in construction trades, retail, and manufacturing. These are people considered less educated with less job mobility, so their only means of advocating for themselves effectively is collective. But, this is sort of like the abortion debate where if you have a little more of a libertarian/right bent, you're for RTW because it's just the ideology you think works in the workplace, if you have a more socialist/lefty swing, you're probably going to support labor. But, you are right that union membership is down, but that is largely because unions don't spend as much effort on unionizing the jobs that are available now. When this country was more geared toward manufacturing, there were more union jobs, because people who work in offices are far less likely to be unionized than people who work in a factory or a construction site. RTW and laws that have limited unions have also caused a lot of manufacturing to move south (like many auto plants did from Michigan), where laws favor them more.

IMO, and I realize that this is a very lefty opinion to have, is that US law already favors employers over their workforce with outrageous imbalance. Anything that helps tip those scales, to me, is progress.

[Guest Raidne]

Kay, in an agency state only people who choose to joint the union are members, everyone just has to pay dues. So representation concerns regarding numbers of represented employees are the same with or without right to work.

[Kelli Fury]

In an already unionized workplace, it makes it harder for the initial unionization and makes it easier and more likely to deunionize. Its a complicated thing that is always put forward and lauded by opponents of labor, that's not for nothing, or they'd not spend what they do on it.

[Lord Mord]

I'm not clear what it is that makes unions exempt from having to court people to their cause like anyone else.

[The Marquis de Leech]

If you want to enjoy the benefits of a union, join (and contribute towards) a union. If you don't join, negotiate your own damn pay and conditions. Free-riders destroy things for everyone - it's analogous to voluntary taxation.

[Lord Mord]

RBPL,

It seems to me that justice is not mixed. Either you are interested in justice, where the conditions and compensation your negotiate are only just for anyone who did the same work you do -- which a non-union person could also be doing -- or you are only interested in squeezing everything you can, because you can. Let me be clear: I don't know that there's anything terrifically wrong with the second proposition, so long as your target is employers, but if it's about justice ... then how does an association outside of work make the hours you plug away at your desk worth more? How is that justice?

[Shryke]

If you want to enjoy the benefits of a union, join (and contribute towards) a union. If you don't join, negotiate your own damn pay and conditions. Free-riders destroy things for everyone - it's analogous to voluntary taxation.

Yeah, the big issue seems to be the free rider problem. Places in europe can't force you to pay dues either, but they also have other methods to eliminate the free rider problem. (Germany, afaik, makes the union agreement binding on all workers, whether they are in the union or not. But Germany does alot of other shit different too)

[Shryke]

RBPL,

It seems to me that justice is not mixed. Either you are interested in justice, where the conditions and compensation your negotiate are only just for anyone who did the same work you do -- which a non-union person could also be doing -- or you are only interested in squeezing everything you can, because you can. Let me be clear: I don't know that there's anything terrifically wrong with the second proposition, so long as your target is employers, but if it's about justice ... then how does an association outside of work make the hours you plug away at your desk worth more? How is that justice?

What's justice got to do with anything here?

[The Marquis de Leech]

RBPL,

It seems to me that justice is not mixed. Either you are interested in justice, where the conditions and compensation your negotiate are only just for anyone who did the same work you do -- which a non-union person could also be doing -- or you are only interested in squeezing everything you can, because you can. Let me be clear: I don't know that there's anything terrifically wrong with the second proposition, so long as your target is employers, but if it's about justice ... then how does an association outside of work make the hours you plug away at your desk worth more? How is that justice?

There is no inherent value of work beyond that which someone is willing to pay for. As such, it isn't about 'justice', it's about increasing your bargaining power relative to the other side.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

If you want to enjoy the benefits of a union, join (and contribute towards) a union. If you don't join, negotiate your own damn pay and conditions. Free-riders destroy things for everyone - it's analogous to voluntary taxation.

That's reasonable. I've never understood why non-Union employees should be able to negotiate the same wages and benefits as the Union employees. Why can't that limitation be part of the contract the Union negotiates for its members?

[Galactus]

RBPL,

That's reasonable. I've never understood why non-Union employees should be able to negotiate the same wages and benefits as the Union employees. Why can't that limitation be part of the contract the Union negotiates for its members?

What do you mean here? That the union would put a clause in the contract with the employer that non-union workers would recieve less benefits?

[Datepalm]

RBPL,

That's reasonable. I've never understood why non-Union employees should be able to negotiate the same wages and benefits as the Union employees. Why can't that limitation be part of the contract the Union negotiates for its members?

Because you're entirely failing to get what the point of a union is. It's not a business and it's not a service provider - at least, it shouldn't be. That attitude is why a lot of large, old unions today are as loathed as they are. If unions can somehow get the right to leave people in the same bargaining unit out of the CBA because they're not union memebers, that will pretty much be a nail in that coffin. Of course, that's what you want, because you want unions to be things that are not unions. Because you DON'T GET WHAT A UNION DOES.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

And you want to force people to be in Unions whether they choose to be in them or not. I fundementaly disagree with your comfort with coersion in these situations. If a Union is providing a benefit to individual workers they will join, without coersion.

[Datepalm]

Yes, i'm ok with forcing people to get more money and better conditions even if they're not in the union. Sure.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

Because there are no costs associated with Union membership and they provide nothing but benefits for their members? And regardless of benefits you still want to force people to take them. How is your coersion better than a nation invading and forcing another nation to accept its form of government for that other peoples' "own good"?

[Datepalm]

There are no weapons of mass destruction involved?