Apple and fraud

[Cail]

Oh, I'm not arguing against freedom. I am arguing against the tried-and-true myth that letting corporations steamroll over people is somehow "freedom".

Please explain how forcing an employee to join a union and pay dues isn't steamrolling over individuals.

You would first have to explain how any employee was forced to join a union.

Simple, in a union state, if you work in a union trade, you're not going to get a job if you're non union. Moreover, if you're offered a job in a closed shop, you either have to turn down the job or join the union. You appear to be arguing that no one is forcing anyone to take jobs, and if indeed you are, you're technically correct. I suppose one could make a principled decision to be unemployed rather than join a union, but I'd bet we could agree that nonunion employed people are going to be better off than unemployed people.

Do you know what we have lots of data for? What working was like before unions. I don't want to go back to that, thanks. It's not my kind of freedom.

I want to make sure I understand you. Do you believe that making union membership optional (which is what Right to Work is all about) would somehow turn back the clock on labor relations 150 years? We have lots of data from the 22 states that are currently Right-to-Work, and none of them are the Dickensian-nightmare that you're predicting.

That's quite a tactic to say I claimed anything like that. I didn't.

Reading is fundamental Wayfriend, I asked you a question, I didn't claim you said anything. Care to answer the question?

And the old everythings-fine-we-don't-need-these-protections-any-more argument - not a powerful argument, really.

Other than the fact that there are 22 states not living like you're describing. So excepting the obvious facts of reality......Nah, you still don't have an argument.

As long as unions exist somewhere, they indirectly benefit everyone everywhere else. Employers treat workers well because they want to discourage unionization.

In that case, we really only need one union shop in the country. I like your argument here. Good thinking!

Make unions something that becomes of no concern whatsover, and that will change rapidly.

Except for the obvious example of the 22 states that are Right-to-Work.

But maybe you like China.

What are you, 12?

I do know about rights. I do know that collective bargaining is my right. I do know that every right-wing law that limits collective bargaining limits my rights. That's not my kind of freedom either.

You apparently don't know your rights, as collective bargaining ain't one, not by a long shot. And don't try to conflate it with your right to assemble, as a 2nd grader could pick that argument apart.

Please go ahead. I assume you are at least as smart as a 2nd grader.

If I have a right to free speech, then I can say "I won't work for you unless we agree to these terms". If I have a right to assemble, then I can say, "hey guys, lets formalize our group and ask for terms together".

No argument there at all. However an employer has the right to tell you to pound sand, and to not allow unions in their shop (since, you know, you don't have the right to assemble on private property).

Wow, that was pretty simple.

[Zarathustra]

Please explain how forcing an employee to join a union and pay dues isn't steamrolling over individuals.

You would first have to explain how any employee was forced to join a union.

Simple, in a union state, if you work in a union trade, you're not going to get a job if you're non union. Moreover, if you're offered a job in a closed shop, you either have to turn down the job or join the union. You appear to be arguing that no one is forcing anyone to take jobs, and if indeed you are, you're technically correct. I suppose one could make a principled decision to be unemployed rather than join a union, but I'd bet we could agree that nonunion employed people are going to be better off than unemployed people.

Not to mention that no one forces people to work for corporations, either. If "you don't have to work for them" is an acceptable answer to an undesirable condition of employment, then there was never any need for unions in the first place! No one forced you to work weekends, 70 hour weeks, in unsafe conditions, for little pay and no benefits, yada yada.

If unemployment is an unacceptable solution for one, it must also be unacceptable for the other. For years we've been hearing how unrealistic and cruel it is to expect people to not work for corporations that mistreat them, how they are held hostage to some extent by their need for a means to support themselves and the difficulty of moving out of poor job markets, but now suddenly it becomes an acceptable way to argue for protecting a union's monopoly over a workforce? And this rhetorical strategy is not to protect or empower individual people, but to protect and empower a (Democratic) organization? I hope the irony isn't completely lost here. The "solution" to being steamrolled by corporations has become virtually indistinguishable from the problem it was meant to correct.

Maybe we should start forming anti-union unions to protect us from steaming-rolling unions.

It's unbelievable how the boogyman of Evil Corporations are being used to justify unions which give you no choice but to either pay them for the "privilege" of being forced to be a member, or you get no job. Hell, the corporation at least pays you. But they're the bad guys. Okay.

What's wrong with the choice of whether or not to join a union? Does it ever occur to people to ask why some would make this choice? If unions are so great, then why do you need to force people to join them?

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

What is to prevent a Union, in a right to work State, from negotiating wages and benefits that are exclusive to the Union and its membership? That's part of the freedom of contract. If the employer then pays non-union employees the same wages and benefits as Union employees they are in breach of contract and subject to sanction.

[Avatar]

Ever heard the term "union shop?" Some states allow unions to force their employers to agree to only hire union members. If they hire someone non-union, that person has a certain amount of time to join the union or be terminated.

Sounds unconstitutional to me. Discriminatory at the very least. Not allowed here. Your choice whether you want to be in a union or not.

--A

[Rigel]

Ever heard the term "union shop?" Some states allow unions to force their employers to agree to only hire union members. If they hire someone non-union, that person has a certain amount of time to join the union or be terminated.

Sounds unconstitutional to me. Discriminatory at the very least. Not allowed here. Your choice whether you want to be in a union or not.

--A

Exactly. You have a "right to work" for the employer, whether or not you join a union.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Aliantha,

What is to prevent a union, in a right to work State, from negotiating wages and benefits that are exclusive to the Union and its membership? That's part of the freedom of contract. If the employer then pays non-union employees the same wages and benefits as Union employees they are in breach of contract and subject to sanction.

Because that would be requiring an employer to pay less money/benefits to non-union employees. How is that enforceable? Are employers required to hire unions? In a 'right-to-work' state, what is the incentive for an employer to employ union workers, assuming their pay and benefits will always then be higher?
Conversely, how could any union then negotiate for higher pay and benefits, or less reductions in pay/benefits when the company looks to reduce costs to keep Wall Street happy, when they know that the employer's next logical action would be to simply hire less union workers in favor of more non-union workers?

At their heart, a union is a self-interest group. That's not a slam, but sometimes unions do get too big for their britches, and then exist only to sustain themselves *no matter what*. At the same time, I recognize Unions in some sectors would benefit workers' interests in the face of increasing pressure from other self interest groups that would harm workers, like Wall Street, and upper management looking for the next round of cost reductions to maintain that elusive permanent growth curve that Wall Street demands. Remember, Wall Street demands that all companies permanently be on self-administered steroids to stay in the gym, and then we complain when the same companies get corporate roid-rage and shrunken testicles.

dw

[SerScot]

DukkaWaynhim,

Aliantha,

What is to prevent a union, in a right to work State, from negotiating wages and benefits that are exclusive to the Union and its membership? That's part of the freedom of contract. If the employer then pays non-union employees the same wages and benefits as Union employees they are in breach of contract and subject to sanction.

Because that would be requiring an employer to pay less money/benefits to non-union employees. How is that enforceable? Are employers required to hire unions? In a 'right-to-work' state, what is the incentive for an employer to employ union workers, assuming their pay and benefits will always then be higher?
Conversely, how could any union then negotiate for higher pay and benefits, or less reductions in pay/benefits when the company looks to reduce costs to keep Wall Street happy, when they know that the employer's next logical action would be to simply hire less union workers in favor of more non-union workers?

At their heart, a union is a self-interest group. That's not a slam, but sometimes unions do get too big for their britches, and then exist only to sustain themselves *no matter what*. At the same time, I recognize Unions in some sectors would benefit workers' interests in the face of increasing pressure from other self interest groups that would harm workers, like Wall Street, and upper management looking for the next round of cost reductions to maintain that elusive permanent growth curve that Wall Street demands. Remember, Wall Street demands that all companies permanently be on self-administered steroids to stay in the gym, and then we complain when the same companies get corporate roid-rage and shrunken testicles.

dw

Exactly, in order to get the labor of the Union's members the employer agrees to a pay scale that always pays Union members more and/or gives members better benefits. It's a perfectly rational agreement. If the employer then goes on to give non-members better wages/benefits it is in breach of its contract with the Union.

The Employer has negotiated away its ability to pay anyone whatever it wants in exchage for the Union's labor.

[Cybrweez]

Sounds unconstitutional to me. Discriminatory at the very least. Not allowed here. Your choice whether you want to be in a union or not.

--A

Yes, its very discriminatory. And after hearing from WF and Z and cail, I'm more convinced we need all states to be right to work. The pro-union side in this debate is lacking. I don't know how you say its banning anything that shouldn't be banned - discrimination against non-union people. Not all discrimination is bad, but I think this one is.

I imagine another tactic is to claim that those who support right to work are voting against their own interests?

[wayfriend]

How does it undermine a union for "free riders" to receive the benefits of collective bargaining?

Because the employer wants to make unions seem moot by demonstrating no visible advantage to joining one. This is a tactic to undermine the unions power to attract new members. This is basically the same tactic as "dumping", just applied to labor. Of course, once you drive the union out of business, you are free to crap all over those benefits.

Simple, in a union state, if you work in a union trade, you're not going to get a job if you're non union. Moreover, if you're offered a job in a closed shop, you either have to turn down the job or join the union. You appear to be arguing that no one is forcing anyone to take jobs, and if indeed you are, you're technically correct.

Damn right I am technically correct.

Saying unions force people to join unions is analogous to saying banks force people to have mortgages. Which is basically rediculous, I am sure you agree.

Same comment to Zarathustra. Except to say you argue a false dichotomy (of course! why discuss things in a reasonable way/) of unions or unemployment. You also have the choice of finding employment elsewhere. And you have the choice of demonstrating you are worth more to the employer than the union workers.

The reason unions get what they bargain for, like a closed shop, is that the labor talent that they represent is so desirable that they can demand this price. (Free market.) So if your employer won't hire a non-union worker, it's because you aren't as valuable as that collection of union workers.

Surely you don't want to interfere with such an excercise of the free market?

Reading is fundamental Wayfriend, I asked you a question, I didn't claim you said anything.

Why do you keep a Nazi flag on your front door? Just a question. A question with a premise you might not accept, of course. See how that works? Now look at the question you asked me.

Make unions something that becomes of no concern whatsover, and that will change rapidly.

Except for the obvious example of the 22 states that are Right-to-Work.

Yes, that's another example proving my point, and so failing to make one that counters it. As long as there are states without a so-called right to work, states with this so-called right will continue to benefit. For as soon as labor sees that the so-called right to work starts impoverishing them, popular support for it will end, and unions will be back in the upswing.

Wow, that was pretty simple.

Oh good. You promised a 12 year old could demolish my assertion. I'm glad you were wrong about that, too.

[Cybrweez]

Of course, once you drive the union out of business, you are free to crap all over those benefits.

I'm not sure why unions are a business, but in any case, if that dire situation happened, wouldn't that give a good reason to bring the union back? Then enough people would be motivated to join one again.

[Zarathustra]

Unions aren't destroyed by right to work laws. They still exist in these states. On the issue of wages lowered by these laws, it's not as simple as the rhetoric makes it sound:

Opponents of Right to Work like to point out that the average wage in Right to Work states is lower than the average wage in non-RTW states. For example, on the issue section of AFL-CIO’s website, they cite the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001: “The average worker in a ‘right to work’ state earns about $5,333 less a year than workers in other states” (“RTW States Are”). Proponents of Right to Work do not dispute the above statistic, but suggest that the statistic is overly simplistic, manipulative and misleading.

On a nominal basis, wages are lower in Right to Work states, but proponents argue, and this paper confirms, that once the above statistic is adjusted for cost of living, real spending power is at least the same and perhaps higher in Right to Work states. For example, when the National Institute for Labor Relations Research used The Economist Magazine’s data to adjust the poverty rate in 2001 for cost of living they found that this adjusted rate was 10.8% in states with Right to Work laws as compared to 12.9% for non-RTW states (“Independent Study”).

right-to-work-laws.johnwcooper.com/

"Finding employment elsewhere" is the same argument people can use to negate the necessity of unions: if you don't like the pay or working conditions, find employment elsewhere. Thus, if this is a realistic solution to avoiding closed-shop union employment, it's also a realistic solution to make it impossible for any corporation to "steamroll" anyone ... and hence, unions are unnecessary. In short: this argument undermines the ostensible purpose of unions, i.e. the difficulty in resolving work issues by reference to other free market choices. It cannot be maintained without undermining what it ostensibly supports.

You absolutely don't have the choice of demonstrating you're worth more to the employer than the union workers, because by law the employer can't hire you in a closed-shop state if you don't join the union. That's kind of the point. Is he supposed to violate his contract? Illegal.

To suggest that a single individual can ever be valuable enough to replace an entire workforce is pure fantasy. If the employer finds union employees so valuable that he won't consider getting rid of the union, then there is absolutely no need for a restriction on him from hiring non-union workers, i.e. no need for closed shops. Again, this reponse undermines the very thing it ostensibly supports.

That's a long-winded way of saying: contradiction. Try again.

[SoulBiter]

Unions are less able to be effective in bargaining with management (almost crippled) if everyone is not in the Union. That's why 'right to work' states have less Union presence. If you want to get rid of any group, take away a vital underpinning for that group and you get what you want.

Why do companies move to states that have right to work laws? Because there, the cost of doing business is lower and the profits to the investors are higher. Why is that? Because Unions are able to bargain to get higher wages, pay less for their insurance, etc etc etc.

You can argue and debate that right to work laws give more freedom to the individual and that is true. But truly the right to work laws were written as a way to limit Unions ability to be effective and to limit Unions movement to states with those laws on the books and without or with very little underpinning of righteous indignation over the rights of the individual.

[Cybrweez]

Those are good points SB. I wonder if, however, companies move to RTW states b/c of productivity gains? I don't know, would be interesting research. Z's posting shows that based on the area, it appears there's not much difference in pay, which if true, would negate your argument. Now it may be employers think that's the case anyway, I don't know.

[wayfriend]

Unions aren't destroyed by right to work laws.

Correct. Right to work laws enable employers to destroy unions.

On the issue of wages lowered by these laws, it's not as simple as the rhetoric makes it sound:

And it's not as simple as your quoted article makes it sound either, because it doesn't take into account how unions, where they are allowed to bargain freely without freedom-destroying right-wing limitations, influence places where the don't. Until you take this into account, this datapoint serves nothing.

"Finding employment elsewhere" is the same argument people can use to negate the necessity of unions: if you don't like the pay or working conditions, find employment elsewhere.

Yes, it is. And if you restore this comment to the context it was spoken in, you can see that we've successfully refuted the point that unions force people to work for them, which in turn demonstrates that claims, which state that the so-called right to work laws restore any so-called freedom that unions are reputedly taking away, are completely false and misleading.

Thus, if this is a realistic solution to avoiding closed-shop union employment, it's also a realistic solution to make it impossible for any corporation to "steamroll" anyone ... and hence, unions are unnecessary.

That would be a valid point if, as has been pointed out, we have a remarkable amount of data describing what working conditions were like before the advent of unions. But we do, so we do know that unions are necessary.

All you are doing here is pointing out one way that unions are not necessary; you aren't demonstrating that unions aren't necessary in any way at all.

You absolutely don't have the choice of demonstrating you're worth more to the employer than the union workers, because by law the employer can't hire you in a closed-shop state if you don't join the union. That's kind of the point.

Yes. I call that kind of point a lie. By omission. Employers freely agree to have a closed shop. State laws guarantee that this agreement is legally binding. The employer can change its mind about closed shop as soon as it is clear of the legally binding contract it freely signed.

To suggest that a single individual can ever be valuable enough to replace an entire workforce is pure fantasy.

I am not saying that. I am saying that, just like someone who doesn't finish high school can't compete with a PhD in physics when applying for a position in a physics research department, a non-union member can't compete with a union member. Which is what union members set out to achieve.

We don't want to enact laws that give high-school dropouts the so-called freedom to get jobs in physics research departments, do we?

Are unions somehow not allowed to be competitive?

That's a long-winded way of saying: contradiction. Try again.

I won't try again on the basis that my first attempt succeeds admirably.

[Cybrweez]

So, the RTW states make it illegal to make a contract that only union members can work at some business? That's different than what I've been reading. That issue is whether a business can discriminate in its hiring.

We don't want to enact laws that give high-school dropouts the so-called freedom to get jobs in physics research departments, do we?

Are unions somehow not allowed to be competitive?

You spend a lot of time complaining about disingenuous claims, but that one has to take the cake. The dropouts have the freedom now to get such jobs, tho I don't know who would hire them. I'm not sure what that's all about. And a union can be competitive, but it should be competitive based on its own merits, not legislation. If people don't care to form one, then its not doing a good enough job existing.

[aliantha]

Aliantha,

What is to prevent a Union, in a right to work State, from negotiating wages and benefits that are exclusive to the Union and its membership? That's part of the freedom of contract. If the employer then pays non-union employees the same wages and benefits as Union employees they are in breach of contract and subject to sanction.

Why would a union do that? The point of collective bargaining is to unite the employees and give them a voice equal to the employer's. The union would be shooting itself in the foot.

All I know is that when I worked for Mutual/NBC Radio News in Virginia, which is a right-to-work state, we had a few people who didn't join the union, but they got paid union scale.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure how they worked the health insurance benefit; AFTRA has its own health plan for members, which I assume non-union employees could not participate in. I guess Westwood One* had to let them into their health plan. But I really don't know for sure.

*Westwood One owned Mutual/NBC.

[Zarathustra]

Those are good points SB. I wonder if, however, companies move to RTW states b/c of productivity gains? I don't know, would be interesting research. Z's posting shows that based on the area, it appears there's not much difference in pay, which if true, would negate your argument. Now it may be employers think that's the case anyway, I don't know.

It's possible for employers to save money while simultaneously not costing the employee anything in effective buying power, given the fact that cost of living is lower in R-T-W states. Lower costs not only balance out the difference in wages, but save the employer money as well.

And that's probably due in part to the productivity issue you bring up. Increased productivity and efficiency can lead to lower costs of living, which is one of the main reasons to oppose unions. They make things cost more. They make our economy less efficient. I can't tell you how many anecdotal stories I've heard from people who work in unions, being told to do less work because they are making everyone else look bad. They strive for mediocrity, uniformity, and as little work as they can get away with. When I drove a truck (over the road, 18-wheeler), we thought nothing whatsoever about parking our rig, i.e. backing it up to the loading dock. That's simply part of being a truck driver. But the union drivers were forbidden from doing this simple task, becuase they hired a separate guy who did nothing but back other people's trucks up to the docks all day long ... while the over-the-road drivers sat in the break room drinking coffee. Two men to do the job of one. That's a union for you.

And there is my sister-in-law, who worked for a company that shall remain nameless, that kept switching her from job to job every time she got good and her production numbers increased over her coworkers. They don't like that sort of thing. So they intentionally slowed her down--penalized her for doing a good job. Yea, unions! Go mediocrity! Higher pay for inefficiency! Hurah! Why try to excel when it will only get you penalized? That's pretty much the point of liberalism, right? People who do better than others must be penalized and discouraged, while mediocrity and under-achievers get rewarded. It's not about exceptionalism, or freedom, but uniformity and "fairness."

The kind of people who purposely choose to work for unions are those who don't have faith in their own ability to excel without collective bargaining. In other words: the mediocre class. You know, like government employees. Those who don't want to be held back by the masses strike their own path.

[SoulBiter]

I have never worked in a Union and did pretty well. So I dont really have a dog in the fight.

For those that don't like Unions you could go out and find plenty of horror stories that would support the idea that Unions are not good and that any thing they bring to the table is minimal.

You could also find plenty of horror stories of corporations that abused employees in ways that Unions would never have allowed.

I think Unions could be good for certain industries to bring in needed change for safetly and better benefits. But I have also seen where Unions have gone too far and effectively brokered the corporation out of business due to not being willing to bend.

[Cybrweez]

I don't think so. I think most union members are so b/c its just what everyone does in that particularly job in that area. Teaching is big example, no one knows someone who's a teacher and not in a union, so if you want to be a teacher, you join the union, b/c that's just what you do. I don't think they put much thought into it. Or in NJ, utility workers join the union, b/c everyone who works in utilities is union, its just what you do.

EDIT: yes, I agree with SB.

[SerScot]

aliantha,

Aliantha,

What is to prevent a Union, in a right to work State, from negotiating wages and benefits that are exclusive to the Union and its membership? That's part of the freedom of contract. If the employer then pays non-union employees the same wages and benefits as Union employees they are in breach of contract and subject to sanction.

Why would a union do that? The point of collective bargaining is to unite the employees and give them a voice equal to the employer's. The union would be shooting itself in the foot.

All I know is that when I worked for Mutual/NBC Radio News in Virginia, which is a right-to-work state, we had a few people who didn't join the union, but they got paid union scale.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure how they worked the health insurance benefit; AFTRA has its own health plan for members, which I assume non-union employees could not participate in. I guess Westwood One* had to let them into their health plan. But I really don't know for sure.

*Westwood One owned Mutual/NBC.

Why would the Union do that, because, in a right to work state they want people to have a good reason to join the Union. They want to show their members that mebership does come with direct benefits. It's perfectly rational. Why would the Union want to provide benefits and bonuses for people who are not members? That would be working against their own interests.