West Virginia Becomes 26th Right to Work State

Why does that not work?? Wages are a mandatory subject of bargaining regardless of profession.

 

Public school teachers are paid according to seniority and level of education. They should be paid based on merit.

 

There is no legal reason they cannot be paid above scale if the parties negotiate that, if so, then it is binding on both sides.

 

Can you provide any examples where individual teachers have negotiated to be paid above what the union negotiated pay scale is ??

 

I support the right of people to freely associate. As a consequence of that, I support unions. Another consequence of that position is that I oppose unions forcing people to pay them dues against their will, just like I oppose the same practice when done by the mafia.

If your organization is truly working in the best interests of the workers then:

a) You wouldn't need to force them to do anything since most would happily join of their own accord

-and-

b) You wouldn't want to force them to do that which they specifically declare is against their interests

 

That example will never be provided, at least not in a closed shop state. One of the favorite tools of the big business of unions is what is known as "exclusive representation."

They actively seek to prevent individuals from exercising their right to negotiate their own compensation for their own labor by getting companies to contractually agree to only negotiate with the union and nobody else.

After they destroy Joe Blow's ability to negotiate for himself, they start crying about how he is a freeloader and use the government to force ol' Joe to pay the union for the privilege of being sandbagged.

 

For them to be allowed to negotiate to be paid above union scale, their labor contract would have to have language permitting them to do that. I fired off an email to the state teachers association asking for information on labor contracts with this language and hope to have a response by Tuesday at the latest. I 'll post it when I find out.

 

Closed shops have been illegal since 1948.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1741.html

 

Thank you. I mixed up my terms. I meant to use whatever term encompasses those states that allow management and labor unions to collude to prevent individual workers from negotiating the compensation for their own labor.

Maybe "agency shop" or "union shop" is the term I was looking for? Help me out, you know what I'm trying to say and you seem to be up-to-date on the terminology.

 

Whether it's legal or not I've never heard of any teacher actually doing it. I have heard of last year's "teacher of the year" being laid off due to seniority rules.

 

This is the type of union-management collusion against workers that I was referring to. I find it reprehensible that both unions and management think so little of workers that they would sidestep their rights in this manner. Permission to negotiate the price of your own labor? How absurd is that?

 

...and coal-fired power stations produce more radiation than nuclear power stations.
http://http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

 

Agency Fee Payer states is the term you are looking for. Those are states that, while you cannot be compelled to join a union, nonetheless you can be required as a condition of employment to pay a fee equal to what your dues and other legal fee's would normally be as a member.

 

Well that is the law and both sides are held to it. It's basically a business agreement where both sides are required to go by what is written in the contract (business contract). It would be the same as an individual in a non-union shop signing a contract with his/her employer; both are held to it legally depending on how it is written.

In my union, there is language where the company may negotiate with the individual employee to terms and conditions of employment so long as they are no worse then what is contained in the union labor contract. The only caveat is that the company must notify the union that they are doing so and a copy of the final agreement must be afforded to the union. I personally feel that is in no way absurd.

 

It is absurd that a labor union and management are allowed to collude to prevent a worker from negotiating their own compensation without the worker's consent.

I'm not talking about the scenario in your personal anecdote. I'm talking about when workers are actually prevented from negotiating their own pay, which does happen, and you know that this happens.

Do you think that it is right for a union to collude with management against a worker in that manner? Isn't that the polar opposite of what labor unions are supposed to be about?

Also, excusing it away with "well, that's the law" is disingenuous. "The law" doesn't force unions and management to c0ck-block workers like that. The unions insist on putting that in their contracts because it is in the best financial interest of the union bosses.

 

I think it's ok if the workers collectively agree to it; otherwise I'd be opposed to it. The reason why most workers who are union have no issue with collective bargaining is because, in most cases, it is believed that there is strength in numbers and personally I would tend to agree with that mindset.

If I were personally opposed to being unable to bargain individually because of the union/management agreement, then I'd be predisposed to find employment elsewhere. Shouldn't be too tough since 94.75% of the private sector workforce is non-union and if one has the skills, then they shouldn't have an issue finding gainful employment.

 

Some workers expect -- demand -- Union Scale wages and benefits without paying Union dues … and employers want to just abolish organized labor all together ...

 

The union contract on wages, I believe the term was job shop and wages were set by the job you did and the years employment. I was better able to advance my positions and wage/salary based on my worth after I was no longer limited by union contract.

 

So tell me something, you get a letter tomorrow from a company in which a good chunk of your retirement money is invested telling you that they lost money last quarter in fact because of higher labor cost will lose money from now on but because they care so much about their employees above all else they will not move the plant out of the country or cut wages or lay anyone off but PLEASE keep your money invest and be proud you are losing it so that the employees don't have to suffer.

How long would you leave your money invested?

Or you retirement investment broker presents a company to you whose prospectus states that profit is not their concern, paying the employees more than the jobs are worth will be the policy of the company and the company will accept losing money every year.......how much of your retirement would you invest? Or how fast would you fire him?

 

If you are in a 401.k and make poor decisions, that is your issue and not the company's; on the other hand if you are in a defined pension benefit plan and they company makes a poor decision regarding investments (historically companies manage defined pension benefit investments and not the employee), shutting down and moving out of country is not the answer either.

 

Clarify. Do you mean that if 51% agree then it is okay for them to deny the other 49% the right to negotiate their own wages even though they never gave their consent? Because that's what we're talking about here.

 

Maybe the people of West Virginia can build windmills that will save the planet.

 

We can and will (eventually) be smarter about all of these questions, but the economic-technical adjustments take time …
In the meantime IMHO we as a society owe assistance to communities in transition …

In addition, we will always need and mine/extract resources such as coal, but more so for use as chemical feedstocks rather than fuel to be burned ...

 

51% in my book is a majority and that is the democratic process we use in this country, so my answer would be yes to your question.

If there is a vote to unionize and 51% say no and 49 % say yes, would you agree that the majority have it?

 

We're talking about your decisions, try to focus this time.

So tell me something, you get a letter tomorrow from a company in which a good chunk of your retirement money is invested telling you that they lost money last quarter in fact because of higher labor cost will lose money from now on but because they care so much about their employees above all else they will not move the plant out of the country or cut wages or lay anyone off but PLEASE keep your money invest and be proud you are losing it so that the employees don't have to suffer.

How long would you leave your money invested?

Or you retirement investment broker presents a company to you whose prospectus states that profit is not their concern, paying the employees more than the jobs are worth will be the policy of the company and the company will accept losing money every year.......how much of your retirement would you invest? Or how fast would you fire him?