Do Americans Workers Have Sufficient Rights?

Apparently I woke up and smelled the roses at 18.......I've enjoyed all of those benefits without the aid of a collective. It is a path for the weak of character.

 

What rights do you have in the workplace? that are guaranteed? If you claim it is a path for the weak of character, then you are truly ignorant on the subject.

 

I never have looked to government for my rights. My talents come from God and I do my best to make them known to those that have use for them. That is the free market. I am a free man. You are truly ignorant as to what freedom is about.

 

Mmmm… that's not making any sense or addressing my post.

 

I am not being combative, but what rights do you feel are not 'guaranteed' in the workplace, that a Union can only provide?

 

hopefully you don't ever work for an atheist because your beliefs will likely go out the window as far as they are concerned.

 

If you read post #146 I think that will answer your questions.

 

What items, specifically, cannot be obtained by negotiating for them at the time of hire, without the involvement of a Union?

While I will never personally belong to a Union, and I feel they have long since outlived their usefulness, if a shop is Union, and someone doesn't want to be part of that Union, by what right must they still pay the Union? That is what Right to Work is all about.

 

You as an individual can walk into the bosses office and bargain for your terms and conditions of employment. Boss can either agree with you; or he can tell you to get lost and you don't get hired.

The fact of the matter is that you are bargaining from a disadvantage because you have little or no bargaining power. If there is a union already there, they bargain based on all of the employees so there is strength in numbers.

Unions will continue to be a part of the working as long as there are injustices in the workplace and as long as employers continue to exploit their workers.

If you didn't know, it's federal law that you cannot be compelled to join or not to join a labor union. However in some states you are required to pay a fee equal to what the dues and fees would be. The reason for that is because by law, the union is required to represent you whether or not you are a member. In the right-to-work states, you are not required to pay any fee's even though the union is required by law to represent you. We call those employees "freeloaders" because they get something for nothing and most of them know this and take advantage of it. I think the government should remove the requirement for unions to represent employees in right-to-work states since they contribute nothing to help cover the costs of representation.

 

If you have the qualifications that make you desirable to hire, chances are, you can negotiate with a fair amount of strength. If you are an average joe, you will get average joe benefits and pay.

I will assume from your post that you believe employers will exploit and abuse their workers... what situations or events are not covered by law? Pay is at a rate agreed upon between employer and employee. Benefits are the same. 'exploitation' in this situation, is ambiguous and vague.... if the employer does not pay at the rate agreed upon, allow the vacation/sick time/PTO agreed upon, rates of pay, benefits, etc, all these are covered under existing law. So, back to what purpose the Union exists?

While I'll grant that if the position of the employee is the same as the other Unionized employees, and they choose not to belong to the Union ie pay the dues, then they need to negotiate their own contract. What the Right To Work Does, or should do, is remove the pressure the Union has and would apply to demand membership. https://nrtwc.org/facts/right-work-mean/

Considering Unions claim that they are not forcing unfair wages on employers, then the wage must be considered 'market' for that position. Therefore if Union employees are making X, then a non-union employee should be making X also. To say that a non-Union worker is not entitled to the same wages, would support the idea that the Unions have spoken falsely, and wages are overinflated.

 

You bargain from a position of strength; if you and another person are applying for a position and both of you have exactly the same qualifications and you ask for $35 per hour and the other applicant asks for $34 per hour, the chances are great that the person asking for $34 is going to be hired over you. If you go for a job and ask for $55 an hour and are offered the job for $33 an hour which you accept only to find out a few weeks later that the other 4 people in your office are being paid $45 an hour for doing exactly the same job with the same responsibilities are you going to accept that? If the shop is union, the rates have already been established so you know up front what the job will pay, so they cannot undercut your terms and conditions of employment.

Exploit? Every hear of Walmart? Or H&M or The GAP? All accused of worker exploitation. While in a non-union situation, the rate of pay is agreed upon by the employer and employee; if you are told in your hiring meeting that you'll be paid $20.00 an hour and you get your first paycheck and you find out your being paid $15.00, you go to HR and ask what happened, and your told it must have been a misunderstanding and all you'll get is $15 per hour. What are you going to do? go file a complaint? It's your word against their word. If you are non-union, the companies have an unfettered right to change your pay and benefits to whatever they want to and it's legal. They can make them better or worse and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. If you call out sick, if they don't think it was warranted and dock you a days pay or even fire you over it, what recourse do you have? The answer is nothing. Oh you can go to court and file a lawsuit at your own expense (labor attorney's probably are getting around $800 per hour), so roll the dice and see what transpires. The fact of the matter is most people won't or cannot do that so they just move on and hope to find another job. Now, if they call you into the office and fire you because they don't like your race, now that is an illegal act and if you run off to the human rights commission, they'll file a complaint based on your behalf and by the time they get to it (most likely in 9-10 years) you've either moved on to another job and don't want your old job back, the witnesses are either no longer available or you've died. They federal system is designed not to work in most cases (every once in a while they do jump on a case, but are you willing to roll the dice?).

Ok, if they go in to negotiate a labor contract with the company (first off, why would a company negotiate an individual labor contract with most rank and file employees in the first place) and the company laughs at them and refuses to discuss a contract, then what?

I've already addressed right-to-work in a prior posting in this thread so I won't spend time revisiting that again other then to say that right-to-work laws are nothing more then an echo chamber for Federal law which already states that mandatory union membership is illegal. Btw if you didn't know this, the NRTWC is a non-profit group who receives their funding from businesses who want to keep unions out of the workplace period. They have the best interests of the businesses in hand and not the workers. My opinion of course!

The non-union worker is entitled to absolutely nothing more then the company is willing to provide to them. That is the law. If the union worker is making $35 an hour and the company decides to pay a non-union worker $40 an hour, that is legal; on the other hand, if the company decides to pay the non-union work $25 an hour, that likewise is legal. In my line of work, the unionized employees not only averaged more pay then their non-union counterparts, their benefits and working conditions were better then their non-union counterparts.

Bottom line is this: Ask yourself, if you've ever bought a new car or a house, one of the most important things you do is to sign a contract, which details what has been agreed to: the color of the car, size of the engine, accessories and the price you will pay. Why do you do you sign a contract? To protect yourself legally and financially; to do otherwise would should a complete lack of sense.

Your job is your financial guarantee, from pay to benefits to working conditions. To me it makes complete sense to have the best "contract" you can get. You can go into the bosses office and make your demands; he can do one of three things: say yes and you get what you want, he can say no and tell you to get back to work or he can say no and fire you on the spot (which is legal). So the question is this: do you think you have more bargaining power as a single individual or more bargaining power with several hundred individuals collectively? That's all up to you.

 

If my work meets their criteria I am sure we could have a working relationship.

 

For your employment sake I do hope so.

 

I never depend on a single individual,union, or government for my welfare.

 

You're worth a lot less under capitalism than you are under socialism. No wonder Big Business has you trained to fear the very word.

 

Lets hope it stays that way for you

 

I do have family, friends and a Church that cares about me. If it all goes South I know where my help comes from.

 

You are worth nothing under socialism. Under socialism, you are only a mouth to feed and a back to labor. Under capitalism, you are worth whatever you can produce, whether that be a dollar or a billion dollars.

Socialism would be evil even if it worked. But it doesn't work. North Korea and South Korea have the same people, sometimes from the same family, the same general level of IQ, the same raw materials, the same geography, the same climate. The only difference is the economic system. It's the purest test of two competing ideologies you will ever get. Here they are, the results of socialism/communism v. capitalism:



South Korea is lit up by capitalism. North Korea is darkened by socialism. That one bright spot is Pyongyang. The rest of the country is almost completely dark.

 

For the millionth time, communistic dictatorships are not socialist. This is why nobody takes you guys seriously.

 

Why do you think republicans won't lift a finger to stop illegal immigration. Its about cheap wages with no benefits; and if the taxpayer has to subsidize many of them that don't work oh well.
It's all about the bottom line, and nothing else matters.

 

Yes I do. What is it?

 

The premise that employers will automatically try and short-change the worker, doesn't happen as often as you might think. Employers are well aware that not only do employees talk to each other, the employer will also become known in the employment marketplace, and won't be able to hire quality staff. In addition, the expense to the employer for hiring and training exceeds the 'savings' they might see on an hour to hour basis.

The DOL is more active than you think. The penalties and fines for even minor oops' type mistakes are hefty, in addition to payment to the employee(s). You don't need to hire an attorney... dropping a dime to the State DoL gets a visit to the employer and/or worksite in a matter of days. Been through it. You would be surprised how vindictive an ex-employee can be, even when the employer has done nothing wrong. The grief and aggravation isn't worth it to most employers.

Your entire reasoning is based on the idea that employers are seeking to deny their responsibilities to their employees. Of course there are some, but they do not last long, especially in todays vindictive, litigious society. If a rate of pay is accepted by the employee, regardless of what others make, then that is their contract. No two employees come to a position with the same experience, knowledge, aptitude and attitude, therefore has different values to an employer. If the employer does what you mention, and tries to lower the rate of pay, they lose the employee, and have to start over, in addition to the ex-employee bad-mouthing the employer for it, reducing the employers chances of finding decent hires, and the ex-employee may well call the DoL.

So if the States being Right To Work is redundant to a Federal law, why does it bother you that it exists? Just as there are State DoL, there is the Federal DoL. Do some research on that when you have a free moment.

It does not require a Union to provide all of the above 'benefits' or work stability. As I previously stated, if a company offers benefits to one, it must be offered across the board, and is protected by law. Workplace rights are protected by law. Anti-discrimination, unjust termination, there is nothing that isn't covered by law.

I view Unions as a third party company that wants to charge fees for something you can do yourself, if it is necessary. But even if it isn't necessary, the Union requires you to pay for it, if you are a member. When the Union decides you need to strike, you aren't allowed to work... but they still get paid. As to Union members 'making more money', that is because their increases aren't, and cannot be, merit based.

I've had my dealings with Unions, and found them sorely lacking. If someone else choose to be part of a Union, that is their choice. As part of management in a mid to large company that treats their employees fairly, I see no need to introduce another entity to take funds from the staff, to provide nothing that isn't already provided, and covered by law.

 

Nobody takes you seriously because a communist system is as socialistic as it gets. Socialism is about government control. If you can't see the government control in communism you just prefer to stay blind.

 

Ex-employees may talk but in most cases that's where it starts and ends. Since the supply exceeds the demand, employers are able to manipulate employees with little to no backlash. Many employees know nothing about state labor law (as poor as they are) and accept whatever the employer gives them.

Again, many ex-employees or employees are hesitant to contact the DOL due to retaliation by the employer; yes it's illegal, but the employer simply finds another excuse to terminate the employee legally. I've seen it happen before so I know it's not just a rumor, it does happen. Most employees don't want to go down that road. Grief and aggravation may not be worth it to mom and pop employers, but the big corporations who maintain staffs of labor relations attorney's a discharged employee who files a complaint is not grief or aggravation, it's all part of a days work.

Not every employer denies their responsibility to the employee, but plenty do in order to maximize profits and reduce overhead. Acceptance of a salary is not a legal contract; in most cases a verbal contract won't hold water in a court of law. Unless the employee signs a personal service agreement, the company is free to do whatever they want to when it comes to the terms and conditions of employment. Even if the company were to reduce the pay of a newly hired employee, not all employees are in a position to resign on the spot. They may accept it and remain working or resign and have to start the whole process all over again. Starting over for many is not an option. Calling the DOL is a waste of time in most (but not all cases) unless you have concrete evidence and witnesses.

Right-to-work doesn't bother me in general, what bothers me is that in those states, unions are forced to represent those who pay nothing towards maintenance of the contract. I think that is wrong and the laws need to be changed which will excuse unions from representing non-members.

Please provide a link where federal and state laws mandate benefits to all employees across the board. The only Federal workplace laws protecting those in the private sector are those covered under CFR Title VII. If you are employment at will, you serve at the pleasure of the employer who may sever that relationship for any reason subject to Title VII.

Like any other not-for-profit business, unions have employees such as secretaries, representatives, officers and other employees and they have to be paid and provided with benefits. Negotiating labor contracts cost money, as does maintenance, organizing and education. Therefore it stands a reason that the members pay dues to make ends meet. Just like any other business. The non-union employee can negotiate with the employer but bargains from a weak standpoint as opposed to bargaining one from a position of strength

Your assumption that union members pay scales aren't and cannot be merit based is flawed from the beginning; The scales listed in most contracts are required minimums; if the company feels the employee should be paid more, unions have no problem with their members making more money. I'm a perfect example. I received a merit increase in my weekly pay because the company felt I deserved it. The union never once stood in the way nor protested.

Your experience is much different then mine. You are management so that is expected since your loyalties are directed towards the company. If, as you maintain, the company treats the employees fairly, then you should never have to worry about a labor union being contacted for organizing. However if for some reason, that does occur and the union is voted in by the employees, it would behoove the company to form a working partnership with the union as it would benefit both.

Finally, you never responded to one question I asked you; when you buy a new car or purchase a house, why do you sign a contract? The right answer is to protect yourself legally and financially so you pay the agreed upon price as opposed to showing up to pick up your car or at the closing find out you owe more money then you agreed upon.

Don't you think that protecting yourself financially when it concerns your job/livelihood makes common sense? I'm curious to your response.

 

The majority of our employees are entry level, or one step above, we have about 150-200 that are above that, before we actually get to 'management'. I don't know where you are located, but where we are, supply does NOT exceed demand, quite the opposite, and has been for several years. We are paying wages to no experience, first jobbers that 10 years ago, were what the experienced worker was making. We can't keep them, even at that. Second, even the entry level know about the DoL, and how to reach them. The State REQUIRES that Labor Law posters have that information included on them, and must be posted in plain site at each work location. So that pretty much eliminates the 'they don't know' part of it.

Not only does the DoL not tell the employer who called, by Law, they are not permitted to. While there may be few exceptions, most employers rarely know who when on a call... the DoL will pop by the location and do an inspection of records of anything specific to the complaint, without notification to the employer except as they are present at the site. They will send a request for Corporate office to pull certain types of records or reports... time clock, employee files, pay records. If something above nd beyond, they will have a safety inspector come in. And they have you pull multiple years worth.

I have yet to encounter an employer in 30 plus years that attempted to manipulate rules, reduce pay or otherwise take advantage of an employee. I encountered one, 30 years ago, who denied what my immediate boss had said regarding raises. From that moment forward, I was job hunting. I am not foolish enough to quit a job without something on line, even back then. They were given my resignation, at which time they offered the raise that had been previously agreed at time of hiring, but I don't play those games. I worked my two weeks, and was gone.

I made my statement. I don't feel that the Unions should have to represent those who are not Union members.

ALL employees of a specific class must be offered the same benefits regardless of rate of pay, age, gender, martial status or length of employment, excepting the waiting period standardized in the policy. I don't have a link to the PPACA, but have a go if you want.

Employment at will works two ways: if the employee can quit without notice, for any reason, then why should the employer be able to do the same? You'll note one thing though... if the employer terminates the employee without just cause (and here, with write ups, signed employee rules and regs, and specific violations annotated) then the employer is charged for the unemployment benefits paid to the employee through the State unemployment fund. The employee, however, can scuttle away and never look back, with the only penalty being if someone calls us for a referal, the best we can do is 'not eligible for rehire.' So, that is entirely slanted in the employees direction.

But then the Union is not maintaining the goal of all being treated equally and without discrimination. My dealings with Unions have proven that more than once. I believe the phrased used (forgive me, it's been a number of years)that the quality of the Member may differ, but the pay rate doesn't. That was said when the company I was working for was required by a customer to have Union representation of Carpentry on site, who stood around and watched our people work because they were clueless how to build a video set. But I digress.

I haven't bought a new car, or financed in in a multitude of years. The only documents signed were the Bill of Sale of what I was buying, the VIN, Odometer reading, and the sales price. I have a small mortgage. It states the terms of repayment, and what happens if I should default. They have nothing to do with what I actually purchased, no expressed guarantees or warrantees. Strictly a funding source. The person selling it, who is part of the sales contract, would be the responsible party if not all is as it was promoted to be, after due diligence.

I do protect myself financially. I know what I am worth in the marketplace, if that event should occur. I also believe that it is wholly up to me to make myself worth enough to the company that they wish to continue to employ me. It's worked for almost 19 years at the same place, so I guess I figured it out. If they should find someone else they prefer over me, then why would demand, by myself or through a Union, that I stay at a place that does not value my work or me as an asset to the company?

My opinion of Unions in general, is not a positive one. My experiences have colored it so, along with Union members who, while decent people, express the idea that they don't need to go above and beyond to make any personal value to the company, for some of the reasons you have stated as being positives.