Sassenach wrote: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.

Not all unions in the UK are affiliated to Labour. I'm guessing your workplace is covered by the CPS union? That is not affiliated to Labour, and none of the political levy would go there (indeed, because of who the CPS represent, I think iot cannot be affiliated to any party). Each union can choose what to do with its political fund (which is where the political levy would actually go), and even those that are affiliated to Labour usually keep a fair amount for their own purposes.

Yes, you have to make an effort to opt-out of the levy. When you join a union, on the form, it's a case of ticking a box. Hardly onerous. And you do get a discount if you opt out of the levy.

Perhaps you have been misinformed.

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.

Sure, but if you are benefiting from other people you work alongside being members of a union (in that the collective bargaining that results in a pay rise for you is done by the reps), it's also a bit of freeriding.

Ricky

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

It's an interesting paper. In Table 1 it shows that Right to Work states have had higher economic growth rates, however somehow the author discounts that. I guess it has something to do with statistical methods used, but I don't understand that part. Does anyone else?

I believe, though I am not certain because this paper is very technical, that the author is saying that the growth is due to there being better business conditions in the right to work states that is not related to right to work itself.

Sure, but if you are benefiting from other people you work alongside being members of a union (in that the collective bargaining that results in a pay rise for you is done by the reps), it's also a bit of freeriding.

I get this, but at the same time it's not like I have any choice in the matter one way or the other. Negotiations take place with the union and I'm forced to accept whatever the union agrees to. They haven't exactly been getting such a great deal for me lately I might add, our T&Cs are getting worse and our pay has been pretty much static for a few years.

If the union didn't exist in its current form then I may consider joining some other kind of voluntary collective bargaining agreement with my co-workers. In fact I probably would join. If the union wasn't as it is then I'd probably be willing to join them too, but as it is I'm disinclined to pay into an organisation that I don't respect and accept the moral responsibility entailed by membership to support all of the strikes that it calls.

rickyp wrote: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.

I would be willing to watch and see what happened.

However, that's not the only possible outcome or choice.

Now, workers who want to avoid dues, still receive the fruits of the unions action.
Freeloaders.

Nonsense. They also don't get the benefits of union membership--whatever those may be. In my union, it was legal representation, discount tickets to Disneyland, and other assorted benefits.

What you fail to look at is that unions are not perfect. They fail to represent the interests of their members on some occasions (like when ours negotiated away paid overtime). With a closed shop, there is no means to punish the union for messing things up. There is also no means to stop them from contributing to political campaigns with which a majority of members disagree (our union was very pro-labor and donated to campaigns that were against what 80% of our membership believed in--gun control, etc.).

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.

And then . . . unions rebound. They will only be strong when they are needed. Right now, they are bleeding their members dry--when they're not fomenting violence (as in Lansing).

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...

Unions are not the sole reason for this.

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...

This law does not outlaw unions. If they streamline and focus on their essential purpose, there's no reason they should. Think of it as "Obamacare" mandates on overhead.

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

I'm tired of this sort of "argumentation." Please, for the love of Pete, take a paragraph or two and paste it or point to a page that you think makes your point.

Here's why: you post a 20-page paper. I don't have time to read it and analyze it. Should I post my own 20 page paper? Maybe a book? I just post a book title to refute your essay title?

Sassenach wrote:

Sure, but if you are benefiting from other people you work alongside being members of a union (in that the collective bargaining that results in a pay rise for you is done by the reps), it's also a bit of freeriding.

I get this, but at the same time it's not like I have any choice in the matter one way or the other. Negotiations take place with the union and I'm forced to accept whatever the union agrees to. They haven't exactly been getting such a great deal for me lately I might add, our T&Cs are getting worse and our pay has been pretty much static for a few years.

If the union didn't exist in its current form then I may consider joining some other kind of voluntary collective bargaining agreement with my co-workers. In fact I probably would join. If the union wasn't as it is then I'd probably be willing to join them too, but as it is I'm disinclined to pay into an organisation that I don't respect and accept the moral responsibility entailed by membership to support all of the strikes that it calls.

This is exactly what happened with us.

And, a number of us got fed up and they formed a rival group. They were looking to replace the entrenched union--which the press was beginning to examine for corruption. So, what did the union do? When on a campaign to close the shop. They were successful and that was that.

We went through a decade or more of meager raises or no raises at all. In fact, it got so bad that after I left (naturally), the County had to come through with a major pay raise just to keep us somewhat competitive with other departments (because you could take your credentials and lateral after as little as a year).

Sassenach wrote:I get this, but at the same time it's not like I have any choice in the matter one way or the other. Negotiations take place with the union and I'm forced to accept whatever the union agrees to. They haven't exactly been getting such a great deal for me lately I might add, our T&Cs are getting worse and our pay has been pretty much static for a few years.

Yeah well, the public sector are getting hammered at the moment. It's apparently popular because the private sector were being stiffed a few years ago.

They aren't getting great deals now, but how bad could they be without pressure on your employers?

If the union didn't exist in its current form then I may consider joining some other kind of voluntary collective bargaining agreement with my co-workers. In fact I probably would join. If the union wasn't as it is then I'd probably be willing to join them too, but as it is I'm disinclined to pay into an organisation that I don't respect and accept the moral responsibility entailed by membership to support all of the strikes that it calls.

Was I right that it's the CPS? Does it change your mind that it's not Labour affiliated? I know Mark Serwotka is a blowhard, but they do a lot of good work (my mother is at HMRC).

You don't have to accept all the strikes it 'calls'. The 'calls' are a result of members voting on them. If you are a member you can vote against a strike that covers you, whereas as a non-member you have no say on the matter. You don't have to accept the moral support of other strikes elsewhere either, if you don't want to.

I know they are not perfect institutions, but there are certainly ways that they have and do support people that are often taken for granted. The worry I have is that some of the changes that were wrought through union pressure will be eroded if they continue to slide. And people will only then realise what they had.

Yes, it's CPS. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not they're Labour affiliated. Although I don't really like the way Serwotka goes about his business, it's the behaviour of the union locally that really put me off them.

I realise that you can vote against strike action, but I tend to take the view that if you're a member of a union and the vote goes in favour of striking then you have a moral obligation to support the collective action. There have been several strikes in recent years that have been approved with shockingly low turnouts that a majority of people I work with didn't really agree with. I obviously came into work anyway, but had I been a member of the union I'd have felt obliged to join the strike even though I'd almost certainly have voted no.

Imagine if someone complained about the actions of a deputy and the department could immediately fire them without cause and without review, at will employment for all public employees, whatever was believed to save money, do it. Of all people our public servants should be the 1st among all of us to have a 'right to work'.

Neal Anderth wrote:Imagine if someone complained about the actions of a deputy and the department could immediately fire them without cause and without review, at will employment for all public employees, whatever was believed to save money, do it. Of all people our public servants should be the 1st among all of us to have a 'right to work'.

Totally related to your post--even if it doesn't seem so.

Years ago, before small digital recorders became available, a man came into one of our stations to complain about a deputy. He said the deputy had solicited him during a traffic stop. The man said when he refused, the officer issued a ticket.

One problem: the deputy recorded the entire conversation. The man subsequently lost criminal and civil cases.

As an aside, it always amuses me that American laws invariably seem to come with some kind of emotive label attached. 'Right to Work' is a very silly name to give to legislation which ends closed shop unions. It doesn't really seem to have much bearing on things and strikes me as only having been used so as to lend emotional weight to what ought to be a very straightforward argument. There are plenty of other examples. When Bush introduced changes to public education he called it 'No Child Left Behind', which is a very emotive title. In Britain it would have just been something like the Education Act 2004 or whatever. I guess there are advantages to giving overblown labels to fairly mundane bits of legislation in that it makes them easier to identify and remember for the ordinary voter who doesn't pay a lot of attention to the legislative process, but at the same time I can't help thinking it's all a bit silly.

Sassenach wrote:As an aside, it always amuses me that American laws invariably seem to come with some kind of emotive label attached.

It's marketing. There is a scene in a season 7 episode of West Wing where one character (Charlie) is trying to get people interested in a specific bill but can't. One of the other, more experienced, characters tell him the problem is the name. It is boring. He needs to spruce it up. Make it something people can get behind or be afraid to vote against.

Sassenach wrote:As an aside, it always amuses me that American laws invariably seem to come with some kind of emotive label attached. 'Right to Work' is a very silly name to give to legislation which ends closed shop unions. It doesn't really seem to have much bearing on things and strikes me as only having been used so as to lend emotional weight to what ought to be a very straightforward argument. There are plenty of other examples. When Bush introduced changes to public education he called it 'No Child Left Behind', which is a very emotive title. In Britain it would have just been something like the Education Act 2004 or whatever. I guess there are advantages to giving overblown labels to fairly mundane bits of legislation in that it makes them easier to identify and remember for the ordinary voter who doesn't pay a lot of attention to the legislative process, but at the same time I can't help thinking it's all a bit silly.

More than a bit silly, it's absurd, counter-productive and cynical: actually designed to replace the reasoning part of your decision-making with the emotional.

The best example was the 'Patriot Act', where Patriot was also a contrived acronym. Pretty much saying "only traitors wouldn't support this"