Joe The Plumber Joins A Union (UAW)

And the employer would pay you less why??? They want less people in the union! Illogical solution

 

The employer isn't the union..... I would take less because I don't want to have anything to do with a union - and have no desire to hear people like you claim the union would have helped me out - oh and I enjoy making union workers look like the lazy clowns they are to boot so it would be a pleasure for me to work for a buck less and do 2x the work on top of that....

 

Did you not see my response? The employer would pay you more if anything to get more people to leave the union so they can get them out!

 

I don't follow your logic.. I'm not an organizer - why the hell would they need me...

People should have a choice to join the union or not to.... If they paid me more then that would be fine by me...It's not like the union puts more money into peoples pockes once they come around demanding their dues.....

 

See, you're thinking every union employee needs someone to negotiate for him rather than basing his pay on performance. I have one guy in my crew of unionized workers who does far more work with far better quality than everyone else. This guy would be getting the big raises every year if there was no union. Your beloved unions are keeping this man down.

- - - Updated - - -

What if that service is substandard?

- - - Updated - - -

That's illegal.

 

No. His choice to work in a unionized shop is (under your theory) keeping him down. he can either go work in a non union shop/ job or go into management. Just as a marriage or business or incorporation contract is not for everyone, neither is any specific union or employment contract. If he thinks he can do better without, he is free to resign and see. He is not free to mooch or steal union services whether he or you as his employer gripe about those services or not.

If the union service is substandard, he can choose not to engage it any further and go elsewhere for employment where this union is not an active participant. If there is a material breach of the union contract with him , he can sue the union for the damages I suppose, just like any other contract.

 

If the device is substandard you can decertify if your coworkers agree. Or you can leave.

How is it illegal? If it is, then paying less must be also!

 

It is illegal to pay different wages for essentially the same job, or to bribe or dock wages to encourage or discourage employees to decertify. Insofar as the union contract between the employer and the employee describes the compensation package, the employer cannot alter or exempt or tamper with that contract in a fashion that discriminates.

 

I can make the same argument when you say an employer isn't paying employees enough money. Would you buy it?

 

Not practical. There are too many offices under this agreement for someone to go around and try to decert. Some people want to but it would be a full time job just trying to do it.

An employer can't buy his way out of a union just as he can't threaten to fire everyone if they vote one in, or shut down the plant, or move to another area and so on.

The ONLY thing an employer can do to get employees to decert is essentially be nicer to the employees than the union is. But they can't promise higher pay, better benefits, more perks, or anything like that. I thought you worked for a union?

 

Unions regularly negotiate for raises and better benefits!

 

Well I was a member of a labor union and they did none of that - they just took my money...

Besides, unions don't dont do any of that anymore - what unions represent is greed and socialism....

 

Yeah, we saw that with Hostess.

 

I do and I've seen them do exactly that! Give mor holidays to non-union workers, although they are a different job class that is idiotically not covered by the Agreement.

Bottom line is you're going to get the negotiated benefits either way, no reason you shouldn't pay for their negotiating

 

I would buy it in any industry where there was a strong union presence that provided the same choice he has. Normally we have low wages in sectors where there really isn't any viable alternative to counter balance the inherent power differential between the employer and the employee. Its the realistic fear of organizing that often really produces results. If your competitors are unionized but your shop are not, you will provide a competitive environment lest your workforce seek the same remedy. Wages are intolerable where there is no union activity at all. That is where the minimum wage and other legislative efforts at redress are most needed.

it is also true that collective bargaining is one method to provide a balancing weight but there are others which work instead to weld the roles such as worker ownership schemes.

 

If 8.25 is the only job available, then one is for all intensive purposes "Forced" to work for 8.25 an hour if one wishes to survive.

 

There's nothing wrong with an additional holiday for non-union workers since holidays are bargained for and giving a non-union worker an extra holiday isn't the end of the world. Now if the unionized and non-unionized workers were in the same shop in the same building and management gave the non-union workers a $5hr raise, then I would expect to see the union file a complaint with the NLRB rather quickly.

Regarding treating non union workers differently, well that's the flexibility of not having a contract that nails everyone into a locked position with little room to manuever. Because of the contractual requirements I'm forced to abide by, I often have to refuse what are sometimes very legitimate and reasonable requests because of the doors they will open. I want to be a nice guy but the 437 page contract sometimes require that I be a dick. You know the rules, If I give a guy a break on something he really, really needs then that break I just gave him now becomes the norm for everyone and it could establish a past practice.

 

That certainly doesn't seem fair.

I have skills that the employer wants, and I want to sell those skills to him for a labor market determined wage, and because I refuse to join your extortion club, you say "work somewhere else"?

God I hate unions and union bosses. Seriously, some of the scuzziest people on the planet.

 

I see from the very first sentence here that I am going to have to give a lesson in economics and the simple concept of supply and demand.

Neither employees nor employers determine wages. They may negotiate within a wage window, but that window is defined by the labor market.

The single most important factor in determining ones labor market value is how easily they are too replace. People with a ton of experience and education are not easy to replace, thus they make more.

Instead of artificially inflating the value of labor, so union lovers can feel all warm and fuzzy, why don't we encourage some of those lower wage workers to obtain more education and skills in fields that are currently under served in our society. That would result in the country becoming more efficient and productive.

Instead, union shrills want to artificially pay union members more than what their actual value is, which only drives up the cost to the consumer, and then pretend that they actually made a difference. They didn't.

Much of that is debatable. I have seen the bumper stickers. The 40 hour work week was not a result of union negotiations. Sorry, thats just a talking point unions use to justify their own existence.

The 40 hour work week was already in play before the unions were even created.

"If they can".

Good god. I am an employer, and have absolutely no interest in abusing my employees. You make it sound like all employers are bad, and just looking for ways to (*)(*)(*)(*) on their employees out of their own selfish greed. Nice narrative. Patently false.

Secondly, many employees hurt employers too. They slack off at work, file false workman's compensation claims, and a host of other ways of working less for more money.

The fact of the matter is. The employer and employee engage in an agreement at the onset of employment. The employee will work X amount of hours, do Y tasks, and will earn Z dollars as a result. Its no different than hiring a painter to paint your house. The only difference is, employees who think they are entitled to more than they agreed to, or bosses who expect more.

This victimization BS has to stop.

And this is the one and only reason why I don't all out oppose unions.

Where I draw the line is where they desire to take it across the line from protecting workers to creating an entire separate class of workers that are compensated at rates far in excess of their labor value and negotiate terms in contracts that are completely foolish. Many states are going bankrupt as a result of pension negotiations with unions who ALWAYS want more more more more more.

It isn't about being fair or safe anymore. Thats long gone. Now its about extorting as much as possible. All the while the snake oil salesman union bosses have their members believing that if they don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars, their employers will walk all over them.

Complete BS.

 

It's "extortion" if I choose to buy a home from a seller at a fair market rate why should I be forced to join their extortion club? And if I don't you say live someplace else???

 

I see somebody failed history class.

- - - Updated - - -

I see somebody failed history class.

 

"Labor value" needs to be balanced with cost of living, otherwise you get what we have now - hordes of underpaid workers relying on government programs just to subsist.

 

That is your response to my well thought out reply.

Ok. Have a great day. You clearly are out of your league.

 

Disagree.

There is no value of tying the two together.

First of all, what is the appropriate standard of living? That is a very subjective idea. My grandparents lived in a two bedroom house, raised five kids, had an outhouse, and owned a single car. They lived that way for decades. That was NORMAL.

What you are expressing is entitlement. You think that people are entitled to a house with the same number of rooms as people living there, entitled to two or more late model cars, air conditioning, cable and internet, and cell phones. You have CREATED this expectation for an appropriate standard of living, based on what you want.

As a result, you want to dictate the value of labor to suffice fullfilling these abstract entitlement expectations.

What you fail to realize is that cost of labor is directly related to cost of living. This is often ignored. If we paid everybody $25 an hour, then the costs of goods and services would increase to maintain costs of production. All you have created is inflation. Those people making $25 an hour are now expected to pay $25 for a fast food meal. We are right back where we started. Prices are based on what it costs to produce, and in any industry, labor is the highest cost. If the cost of labor increases, then the costs of those products must also increase. Its all tied together.

The problem is entitlement. If somebody is making $10 an hour, and they want a life style that requires $25, then they have a few choices. Go back to school and obtain skills that warrant an increase in wages in the labor market, or work 80 hour work weeks for $10 an hour with some over time.

Those are your choices. Our society is spoiled.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is an HAO protecting the citizens from Mello?

Who?

That is the entire point of a Union. To protect laborers from evil greedy bosses and corporations.

You show me who an HOA protects homeowners from, and Ill debate your ridiculous comparison. Until then, its non-sense you have come up with the attempt to validate your own position.

 

Invariably this is where this type of discussion goes, into ideology about how poor people should just do more for themselves, how they're all lazy and spoiled and all that. Maybe their circumstances don't always allow for that.