danivon wrote:What is the usual change for such services, compared to full union dues?

Typically it is a percentage of the dues. For example the NEA/AFT (teachers unions) will deduct 80% of the dues from the paycheck of non-members to pay for the benefit recieved from the negotiation.

It must be very frustrating for a union member to have to pay the union a sizeable sum, and then to see the union contribute to a politician with whom you disagree. The NEA/AFT combined contributed over $19 million dollars this election season to Democrats and outside spending groups. If a teacher supports the union, but because they are a social conservative and therefore preferred Romeny, without Right to Work, aren't they condemned to contribute to the political campaigns of their foes? That seems wrong to me.

If a company contributes to candidates or causes with which I disagree, I can sell their stock and/or refuse to buy their product. But if I am a member of these teacher unions, am I just stuck with this result?

By the way, judging by the reaction of Sas, DF, and some other people I know, my experience is that the most vocal critics of unions are people who have belonged to them. That's go to be an important factoid.

RJ,

Non-union members can object to use of their fees for political purposes and can get a refund ( the pro rtw group link discusses this above)
With regard to the question of the experiences of our fellow Redscapers with unions: (1) where do they lie on the political spectrum, and (2) did they quit their jobs and go get lower-paying non-unionized jobs in the same industry?

freeman2 wrote:With regard to the question of the experiences of our fellow Redscapers with unions: (1) where do they lie on the political spectrum, and (2) did they quit their jobs and go get lower-paying non-unionized jobs in the same industry?

Well, I am pretty anti-union because of experience with them. While I didn't quit, I did end up leaving the job because I refused to join the union. And yes I ended up in a job in the same field making more money and with better prospects for advancement.

An anti-right to work perspective
http://www.freep.com/article/20121206/B ... -relations

Although right-to-work states may be more attractive to business, this does not necessarily translate into enhanced economic verve in the right-to-work state if there is little “trickle-down” from business owners to the non-unionized workers. Findings are that the number of businesses and self-employed are greater on average in right-to-work states, but employment, wages, and per-capita personal income are all lower on average in right-to-work states.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1027987

Interesting, that however you may feel about the idea of paying union dues or not .... right to work has had the effect of limiting workers pay.
Only 7% of Americans are now in unions and yet, without unions pushing for higher wages ...(according to the study above) average incomes don't rise.

China has the same problem. No Unions, so no organized effort to increase pay. Labour represents a smaller and smaller portion of industries expenses, and profits increase.
Its the economy regressing back to the Gilded Age where income and wealth disparities were greatest.
A time when there were few Unions.
I'm no fan of unions as they exist, but they have served to help produce a relatively prosperous working class (historically) and a solid middle class. The part of society that both is the engine of the consumer economy, and the part that has been kicked in the teeth over the last 30 years, and particularly in 08.

Ricky:

I'm no fan of unions as they exist, but they have served to help produce a relatively prosperous working class (historically) and a solid middle class. The part of society that both is the engine of the consumer economy, and the part that has been kicked in the teeth over the last 30 years, and particularly in 08.

Well Michigan has not been right to work over these last 30 years, so perhaps right to work is not the problem.

freeman2 wrote:An anti-right to work perspective
http://www.freep.com/article/20121206/B ... -relations

A fine combination of sophistry and propaganda.

Lower income? Look at the States and their cost of living.

Would it shock you to find that people in Mississippi make less than people in New York? That might be, in part, because you can live comfortably in Mississippi for the amount New Yorkers spend on a bagel (yes, hyperbolic in the extreme).

Read through all the spin of politifact, and I think you'll find right-to-work is mostly a plus: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/art ... ts-impact/

rickyp wrote:China has the same problem. No Unions, so no organized effort to increase pay.

You keep using China as a comparison. It's easy, and it's pretty foolish.

1. China is still a dictatorship. No right-to-work State is.

2. China restricts freedom to assemble. No right-to-work State does--as was seen yesterday, as the union mob assaulted those with whom they disagreed.

3. Right-to-work States still have unions. Unions can still go on strike and bargain for better wages and benefits. However, they have to convince their membership that belonging to the union is worthwhile. Isn't that a horrible burden? It's kind of like one grocery store having to prove it is better than another (so scary!)

4. Right-to-work States have been established by a democratic process. It may be flawed and ugly, but it does not compare to living under a totalitarian regime, even if it occasionally moderates.

So, please, stop playing the "China card.' It's rubbish.

DF, take a look at Ricky's paper, right to work reduces per capita income (and varying economic conditions are controlled so need to go into lower cost of living and so forth). Right to work does what one would expectit to do--by weakening unions, it transfers wealth firm workers to business.
At this point with union membersh so low, however, the primary purpose of passing right-to-work laws is political, to weaken the Democratic Party. Another anti-democratic, last gasp attempt of an increasingly detested Republican Party to stay in power.

In the UK you have the right to opt out of the 'political levy' which sees a proportion of your union dues go to the Labour Party. You do have to make a conscious effort to exercise your opt out though, the default position is to take the levy from your dues just like anybody else. It should also be noted that (so far as I'm aware) you don't get a discount on your dues if you decide to opt out, so I'm not sure how much difference it really makes.

I'm not anti-union at all, I just choose not to be a member of the union where I work and I think it's only fair that I have the ability to choose. It's hardly a free association of labour if you're compelled to join.

freeman2 wrote:DF, take a look at Ricky's paper, right to work reduces per capita income (and varying economic conditions are controlled so need to go into lower cost of living and so forth). Right to work does what one would expectit to do--by weakening unions, it transfers wealth firm workers to business.

If true (and, no, I don't want to download a 20-page paper, sort through it, and argue against falsehoods--since you two won't do the opposite. I'm sick of the burden being placed on me to disprove what a simple link allegedly proves. Either do the work yourselves or not, but I won't), then people still have the right to join a union, go on strike, etc. However, in closed shop situations, they have only the rights the union gives them.

At this point with union membersh so low, however, the primary purpose of passing right-to-work laws is political, to weaken the Democratic Party. Another anti-democratic, last gasp attempt of an increasingly detested Republican Party to stay in power.

Haha.

As if giving out favors (free college, free birth control, free this and free that) and sopping up union contributions are somehow different.

If unions are inherently "good," why can't people figure that out for themselves? Why do they have to be mandated?

ray

Well Michigan has not been right to work over these last 30 years, so perhaps right to work is not the problem

.

There were 50 states analyzed in the study.
The trends that they found were consistent. and they would have counted Michigan in the non-right to work state.

I'm a fan of collaborative enterprises where labour councils are treated as an important part of the company. And where their financial rewards, just as management and shareholders, is largely dependent on company performance.
Labour in these kinds of companies has very low turn over. The companies tend to be long term consistent performers. The benefits to companies that treat labour as an integral part of success are demonstrable.

Labour is often treated as a disposable component in most companies in North America. Note how so much was "outsourced" in the last 30 years. Unions originally grew up only because people grew tired of insecurity, poor wages and inability to improve their lives.
If unions disappeared in the US, why would industry behave differently then they did before unions existed? Wouldn't they simply revert to their earlier patterns of behaviour?
Even though Unions account for only a small percentage of the work force, the good wages that strong unions can sometimes win their members drives up wages through out a region. In order to find the best employees, other companies have to pay competitive wages...
Attempts at weakening unions have only one goal. It has nothing to do with liberty.

fate

You keep using China as a comparison

Yes. Its the largest competitor to the US economically. Much of its growth in the last two decades is down to the outsourcing of jobs and industry to China from the US. These industries left the US to exploit the low wages, low working standards and cavalier attitude to safety, in China.
If we know that Union jobs in the US have the positive effect of driving up all wages.... we also know that China has served to put pressure on the US working and middle class to lower their wages and working standards.
This is the law of competition, largely unfettered by regulations...
If the working classes and middle classes are the ones most hurt by the crash of 08 and the lingering poor economic climate - and this is certainly true - then shouldn't US governments be trying to secure the institutions, organizations and policies that have historically improved the lot of the middle class?
Instead it seems that they are pandering to management and owners who are not particularly interested in the long term effect on the middle and working classes - and concerned only on the next quarters results....
Corporations don't exist to try and provide guidance to the economy or society. When governments pander to their needs, society loses long term direction... And often falls victim to the kinds of mistakes corporations often make. (The crash of 08 being a primary example of failure to achieve anything positive from 20 years of deregulation of the financial industries at the behest of the financial industries...)

rickyp wrote:fate

You keep using China as a comparison

Yes. Its the largest competitor to the US economically. Much of its growth in the last two decades is down to the outsourcing of jobs and industry to China from the US. These industries left the US to exploit the low wages, low working standards and cavalier attitude to safety, in China.
If we know that Union jobs in the US have the positive effect of driving up all wages.... we also know that China has served to put pressure on the US working and middle class to lower their wages and working standards.

True, so the solution is to make unions mandatory?

This is the law of competition, largely unfettered by regulations...

There you go again. What regulations would you like to see to stop it? Where is your man Obama? Why isn't he regulating and mandating fairness?

If the working classes and middle classes are the ones most hurt by the crash of 08 and the lingering poor economic climate - and this is certainly true - then shouldn't US governments be trying to secure the institutions, organizations and policies that have historically improved the lot of the middle class?

Faulty analysis. Historically, we did not face a global market like we do now. There was a time that outsourcing manufacturing would not have made sense for some items. That time is past.

The middle class need jobs. Unions inhibit employment.

Instead it seems that they are pandering to management and owners who are not particularly interested in the long term effect on the middle and working classes - and concerned only on the next quarters results....

Pandering . . . by letting people decide if they want to pay union dues or not?

Interesting. How shocking to let people decide the value of unions for themselves!

Corporations don't exist to try and provide guidance to the economy or society. When governments pander to their needs, society loses long term direction... And often falls victim to the kinds of mistakes corporations often make. (The crash of 08 being a primary example of failure to achieve anything positive from 20 years of deregulation of the financial industries at the behest of the financial industries...)

You assert many things without bothering to prove any of them.

You've done nothing to justify your constant bleating about China. Making unions optional is not akin to forcing people to work against their will, kicking their doors in if they hold a Bible study, or having a central government impose wage controls.

Wait a minute--you think the central government SHOULD be doing that. You like more regulation of the economy. No wonder you keep bringing up China. You, like Immelt and Friedman, kind of admire it. After all, it "works," right?

fate

by letting people decide if they want to pay union dues or not?

What the law allows is that people don't have to join the union. But they get the results of the bargaining done by the union.
If the law also mandated that not joining the union would allow the company to pay non-unionized workers less than the unionized workers who contributed to the union...
Then you have genuine choice.
Now, workers who want to avoid dues, still receive the fruits of the unions action.
Freeloaders.
Its a way for companies unhappy with unions, to bleed unions dry, and eventually collective bargaining goes out the window. When that happens wage rates inevitably fall.

fate

True, so the solution is to make unions mandatory?

No.

However, the point is that until unions came along, the standard of living for working class and middle class did not markedly improve...
So if they disappear, expect the middle class and working class to see their standard of living slide.
Not because everyone is unionized, but because the union helps create the competitive market for hourly employees...

fate

The middle class need jobs. Unions inhibit employment

Not according to the facts presented here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1027987