You act as though anti-union FUD can't affect members. That's kind of ridiculous... if it didn't affect MEMBERS as well as non-members, what would be the point?
If I'm a less-educated union member who has no concept of what life was like before unions, and constantly hear that unions just take my money while providing no benefit, I'm probably likely to be swayed. What's the union going to do? Tell me about how 50 years ago companies would literally put my life at risk because there was no downside for them. And then the people financing the anti-union movement are spewing "Well that was 50 years ago, that would NEVER happen again" - all while doing everything they can to drive up hours, drive down safety, and insulate themselves from any responsibility RE: workman's comp.
For the average joe who just wants to go to work and get a paycheck, the bigger picture is often lost.
Honestly, it's rather patronizing to say that union members who disapprove of their union and want to decertify or deauthorize it must either be ignorant or under the influence of external propaganda or FUD. Maybe they have access to information you don't? Or maybe they just have a different set of values from you? Maybe they hold different priorities from what you hold? Maybe they should be assumed to have their own agency?
I'm not going to say that democracy is infallible - in fact, I'm usually the first to point out the exact opposite. But "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a pretty dangerous line of reasoning to start heading down.
I guess it's a good thing I never said any of the words you both put in my mouth and "quoted". Not once did I say I know what's best for them. Not once did I say they couldn't make decisions for themselves. What I DID say is that it's ridiculous to pretend that propaganda doesn't affect people IN unions. Which is EXACTLY what you implied.
Don't be disingenuous, "they don't know what's best for them the way I do" is a very fair representation of your words. Maybe you do? If you're going to take that position, own it.
In my opinion what's disingenuous is to ignore the main point in favor of picking some nit.
"My interpretation is objective reality, but your interpretation is dumb". How about don't be an asshole, man?
Is it patronizing to say that workers who respond to threats like this:
http://www.nysun.com/business/wal-mart-threatens-to-close-un...
might not be making the best risk/reward trade off?
The employer is hardly going to tell you if they're making an empty threat and the prospect of losing your job because they pulled the nuclear option is probably quite terrifying.
Isn't it possible the armchair talking heads like us are the ones missing the bigger picture and the actual workers are the ones who actually get it?
Let's consider the Boeing workers in South Carolina:
- 2009-09 74% of employees vote against the union and decertify it[1]
- 2009-10 Boeing breaks ground on new South Carolina plant to build 787 airplanes[2]
- 2017-02 again, 74% of employees vote against IAM union representation[3]
The "uncertainty" and "doubt" in "FUD"? The South Carolina workers are quite certain and have no doubt that in 2009, Seattle lost the extra 787 assembly work and it was given to SC workers without the union.
It's not irrational that SC workers fear the loss of jobs in Seattle could happen to them. The upcoming 797[4] model is in the works. It's not irrational for South Carolina workers to think that unionizing for better wages will move that 797 production elsewhere. (E.g. Seattle may end up losing all of the 787 production.[5])
>Well that was 50 years ago,
Well, the struggle & benefits gained 50 years ago is an abstraction. The events of 2009 are very fresh and real in the minds of workers.
Voting "YES" for a union doesn't necessarily mean you get a wage increase. It means (1) you might get a wage increase or (2) you might have no job.
How does a worker properly weigh those possible outcomes?
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...
[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33521235/ns/business-us_business/t...
[3] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...
[4] http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/20/news/companies/boeing-797-pa...
[5] http://www.heraldnet.com/news/future-of-boeings-787-seems-se...
The downside is that if the union's approach is too strict, those jobs may simply disappear because it is not feasible to pay those workers more, or it may be cheaper to move those job abroad and import the resulting products.
This also requires workers to struggle and strike not for their job, but for someone else's.
(I am not saying one approach is better than the other, in fact I am usually not too fond of unions, but I am trying to explain the union's point of view)
For example one of the problem is that not all professions are unionized for example, so o get more profit and power the unions need to stifle innovation and steer the government only toward heavy industry to the destriment of almost every other sector
Also being national they seldom talk directly with workers and plant owners, and prefer to play their hands at the political table, often ignoring the specificity of issues.
And since their decision have national level ramification, every singe one needs months if not years to mature, implement and execute. Like, most national contracts are expired and have wages that are ridicolous by 2017 standards and base salary need to be supplemented in various, highly taxed ways, and new form of contracts are impossible to create (IT for example is hired under industrial or commerce contract, as the gategory didn’t exist at the time and there’s no reasonable way to create it now)
The parent comment might be full of lies, but I’m actually more inclined to believe it when the best you can do is call them falsehoods with no evidence or argument.
https://labor411.org/411-blog/1688-this-is-the-anti-union-vi...
The idea that unions can only be used to bargain for wages is propaganda in its own right.
That's where a properly functioning government steps in and stops it. OF COURSE private companies are going to break a union any way possible if the government isn't there to step in. If the US military said "you close that plant, all of our contracts are going to Airbus", exactly how many seconds do you think it would take the CEO of Boeing to change his mind?
The people of South Carolina seem to be quite happy with the current situation.
Right-to-work laws are like prop 13 in California: sounds good on the surface, but hidden terrible impact.
On the surface, "I should be able to choose whether or not I join a union" makes sense, Americans love freedom and choice. But of course, in practice people who choose not to join a union get to freeload: they get most of the benefit of the union in how it informs a company's general policies and culture about workers, but don't have to pay any fees. And like most instances of the freeloader problem, the result is the responsible entity getting starved, as everyone wants the others to be the ones paying for the benefits.
It doesn't sounds like they want any of those so-called benefits. As explained below, the data suggests that if members could feasibly decertify or deauthorize their unions entirely, they would.
Remember that, nationwide, only 7% of union members ever cast a vote in favor of their union. That means less than 7% voted against it, and the remainder never had an opportunity to vote at all.
It's not surprising that, in the absence of a safe way to decertify or deauthorize, some portion of the 86+% who never had the opportunity to vote supports laws that give them the next-best thing. (It's not just right-to-work laws, by the way, though that's the most frequently discussed at the national scale and therefore the most frequently polled).
I mean, most employer policies never get any kind of vote from any subset of the employees, so I'm not sure why I should be so outraged about this one in particular when it seems to be usually to workers' benefit.
Clearly they don't think it's to their benefit, or else they wouldn't be trying to decertify or deauthorize it.
They are, just not directly, because the direct process for decertification or deauthorization is both highly risky (if caught, they could lose their jobs), and also pretty ineffective (the NLRB has a habit of overturning election results, rendering the whole process moot.
So, they use other tactics - hence the increasing support from union members for anti-union lawmakers. Political pundits often write about this as a "paradox" of union members voting "against their own interests", but it's actually pretty straightforward once you remember that union members are individuals who may or may not actually support the interests of the union that they belong to.
But that doesn't mean right to work laws shouldn't exist. Maybe it just means unions shouldn't exist.
I mean, if your entire business model is flawed, should the world change around your business model?
This is more of a devil's advocate position, as I'm not particularly anti-union, but I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one.
I refuse to say that unions have no place in the world, or have no place in certain industries, or didn't have a place in the past. I'm rather neutral on a lot of it, but the fact is the problem is inherent in the union itself.
Unions go a little deep than the concept of "business model"
"[..] I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one."
I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions.
"unions [..] have a place in the past"
That's a common opinion. What have changed from the past?
Because the laws of capitalism tell us that if any profit or benefit goes to the worker is because there is no way around it. Sometimes is a good idea look back to history. For instance the eight hour working day:
" In 1919 in Barcelona, Catalonia, after a 44-day general strike with over 100,000 participants had effectively crippled the Catalan economy, the Government settled the strike by granting all the striking workers demands that included an eight-hour day, union recognition, and the rehiring of fired workers."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)
Sometimes I think that we are all "free riders" on the fights of the past.
I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions."
I have noticed (personal anecdote here so yeah not great) that a large majority of people that I know against unions have never worked in dangerous fields, office workers are ridiculously ignorant as to the workplace dangers of many unionised industries.
> That's a common opinion. What have changed from the past?
Reminds me of a quote I recently came across by Danish communist and activist Carl Scharnberg, roughly translated as:
"The teacher told his pupils that the class struggle is over! A pupil asks: Who won?"
However, your reply is structured around trying to convince me that I should be pro-union rather than ambivalent, and does not address the issue at hand; how to square "right to work" laws and the free rider problem with unions.
Like, employers can require you to do all kinds of things in a contract: wear certain types of clothes, tell you when and where to show up for work, how much you're paid, etc. We regulate some things like health and safety codes because the regulations themselves are clearly in the best interest of the workforce, but who do right-to-work laws ultimately serve?
That's not true.
Actually... yes. Maintenance-of-dues and other contract stipulations can mean that all members of a bargaining unit are required to pay dues fees, even if they aren't members of the union or covered by the union contracts. So, they're required to pay fees to the union so that the union can represent other people, not them, oftentimes against their own interests.
It's particularly common for teachers and other skilled, low-paying jobs.
Contrary to popular belief, companies have incredibly little power in that regard, especially when you're talking about an already-unionized closed shop (as opposed to a company that wants to prevent its workers from unionizing in the first place). Legally and practically, it's incredibly difficult even for union members to decertify or deauthorize their union, and companies are basically forbidden from taking any part in that process. The NLRB is incredibly strict on this; both the NLRB and the courts bias heavily in favor of unions if there's any evidence that companies are seen to be interfering whatsoever in the process.
But beyond this, it's not as simple as "companies have been increasingly more anti-union" because this increaseingly anti-union sentiment comes from the union members. We know this from direct public polling, from their actions on the ballot at union elections, from their actions at the polling booth in government elections, and from what we can see of internal politics with union governance.
To put it another way: if it were easier for union members to decertify or deauthorize their union without getting fired[0], we'd probably see these elections happening more often (both successful and unsuccessful ones). Instead, union members support laws which allow them to bypass this process.
(Note that, after accounting for race, union members overwhelmingly voted for Republicans in the last two election cycles, despite the unions themselves endorsing union-friendly Democrats).
[0] Even if they manage not to get fired in the process - which is totally legal for a union to do, unlike a company firing an employee for supporting a union - the NLRB can overrule the results of the decertification or deauthorization election, which invalidates the whole process.
There's a lot that's skewed in your comments, but that's just flat out wrong. Union households voted for Clinton over Trump by 8%. That's less than Democrats often get, but the idea that union members prefer Republicans is divorced from reality.
Do your own homework next time, instead of spreading cynical lies on the assumption that everyone else will be too lazy to check them.
You're thinking of union shops, not closed shops. Union shops are nominally illegal, but in practice, many large unionized workplaces are effectively union shops, because the NLRB chooses to enforce a very narrow interpretation of the Supreme Court case that they lost.
I don't think so. The media (the 4th estate) is now basically a mouth piece for the corporations. Noam Chompsky has written extensively on this, and the west really does not have a diverse spectrum of opinion, information, and perspective in popular, widely distributed and readily available information sources.
Media and information sources have been consolidated into a few centralised corporate ownerships that are not interested in social justice and a fair distribution of wealth. Quite the contrary, the corporate interests are simply interested in generating shareholder profits and wealth. Indeed, the directors of media companies are duty bound to generate as much profit for their respective corporations. This naturally means that the media corporations are interested in consolidating and centralising as much wealth for themselves as possible, and will cater their information and direction of opinion to achieve that end.
Many nonprofits educate/persuade as part of growing their membership and fund raising. Their motives are simpler and easier to figure out bias for the purpose of triangulation. This is not the same thing as journalism.
"Is that the truth or did you read it in the Herald Sun?"
No, and that's basically by law. Unions lobbied (successfully) for laws which grant them permanent, exclusive access to the bargaining unit once 50% + 1 vote in favor of it.
Pretty much the only cases where you'd have separate unions are where they're representing different types of workers altogether (ie, nurses vs janitors) or when they're not actually employed by the same organization (ie, two different sets of subcontractors).
> And are there some cross-category unions (where workers in different areas and jobs are members of the same overarching organization
Yes, in fact almost every union is affiliated with a federation like the AFL, UAW, Teamsters, etc.
Is there a source on this?
And non-union members are disproportionately likely to support things like closed-shop laws.
It's way more complicated than that, and it can't simply be dismissed as a "FUD campaign". Union members are actually disproportionately likely to support things like right-to-work laws, which unions dislike because it (more or less) means workers aren't obligated to be members if they choose not to.
Similarly, union membership rates have dropped even in states that have very union-friendly laws (like New York and Massachusetts), and unions are having less and less success at the polls, meaning non-unionized workers are rejecting the proposals to unionize their workforces (UAW elections in particular - AFL-CIO elections to a lesser extent).
This pattern isn't as simple to dismiss as "anti-union FUD", especially since it's seen among people who are already union members in closed shops.
The reasons for this have to do with the history of unionization of closed shops, and the regional economic pressures it creates.