[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2014-07-01 10:25 pm (UTC)(link)
> By not having those unions represent those people, there are no longer free riders

If the non-represented people receive the benefit of Union negotiations, they are free riders.

e.g.

A) If non-represented people at a widget factory get their pay increased, because a union negotiated that general pay increase, but the union is prevented from making that pay increase union member specific (because that's what right-to-work laws DO) then the non members are free riders.

B) If the safety equipment and procedures of a coal mine are improved because of union negotiation, the non union members will enjoy the improved safety as well, without paying for the cost of negotiating the improvements. They are free riders.

In the case of B, right-to-work does not address or prevent the free rider problem. In the case of A, right-to-work laws CREATE the Free Rider problem.

Neither A nor B is in any way affected by some hypothetical difference between a national, as opposed to a state, right-to-work legislation.

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 12:18 am (UTC)(link)
I hope everyone here is rude to you then.

[identity profile] madam-shapo.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 12:21 am (UTC)(link)
What you worried about? I very seldom reply to you anyway and only because do not want to hurt your feelings. Now I am not obligated anymore.

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 12:24 am (UTC)(link)
What [are] you worried about? I very seldom reply to you anyway[,] and only because [ I ] do not want to hurt your feelings. Now I am not obligated [ to respond ] anymore.

Please, don't flatter yourself; and who said I was complaining about a lack of comments from an ignorant troll? It's a blessing. But my original sentiment still stands though :-)
Edited 2014-07-02 00:28 (UTC)

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 12:35 am (UTC)(link)
And no burritos for you!

[identity profile] madam-shapo.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 12:46 am (UTC)(link)
I get to make up my sets.

[identity profile] madam-shapo.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
Then, you better stick to your job and don't complain. You can't calculate and plan your whole life - there are no guaranties.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 02:47 am (UTC)(link)
If the non-represented people receive the benefit of Union negotiations, they are free riders.

Right. I'm saying those workers who opt out need to be removed from the situation.

[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 03:20 am (UTC)(link)
> those workers who opt out need to be removed from the situation.

What does that mean? Not covered by the union contract?


You realize this is the OPPOSITE of "right-to-work" legislation? Unions are legally required to represent nonmember employees the same as members. Efforts by a union to restrict the beneficial contract terms to their own members, or to exclude non-members from the shop in general, are exactly what right-To-Work legislation is aimed at preventing.



Edited 2014-07-02 03:21 (UTC)

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 03:31 am (UTC)(link)
This is why we need national right to work, to supercede the NLRA which is what is causing the free ridership.

[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 03:36 am (UTC)(link)
I'm glad you're on board with Unions being able to bargain for a Union only shops, and to exclude non-union members from benefiting from Union negotiated contracts, but to call legislation that does this a "national right to work" is confusing, since typically "right-to-work" legislation already has a broadly understood meaning and effect, including preventing unions from entering into such agreements with employers.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 12:07 pm (UTC)(link)
You're still focused on the unions being able to do whatever they want. If an employer wants a union-only shop, that should be fine. But if an employer doesn't want to deal with a union, great. As it stands, the NLRA is really the problem.

[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 02:07 pm (UTC)(link)
> You're still focused on the unions being able to do whatever they want.

No, I'm focusing on what they typically do, and what laws are typically made to regulate and curtail their power, and what names the laws have typically been given. "Right-to-work", as a descriptor of legislation, explicitly refers to regulating a union's ability to enter into certain kinds of exclusive contracts. That's what it means... that's where the phrase comes from. Laws exist that prevent unions and employers from making union membership a condition of employment, because non-union members have "A right to work".

> If an employer wants a union-only shop, that should be fine

What if the employer doesn't want it... but the employees do? Why is the owner's opinion in any way RELEVANT?

If a union is an organized free association of the employees, where does an employer get the power to deny employees their free association outside of work?
Edited 2014-07-02 14:08 (UTC)

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 02:51 pm (UTC)(link)
What if the employer doesn't want it... but the employees do? Why is the owner's opinion in any way RELEVANT?

They're the ones running the company, paying the wages, etc. They are the relevant party purchasing the labor. Why on earth should labor be granted any legal preference?

If a union is an organized free association of the employees, where does an employer get the power to deny employees their free association outside of work?

They can associate outside of work as much as possible. What's being discussed is inside of work.

[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 03:45 pm (UTC)(link)
> They're the ones running the company, paying the wages, etc. They are the relevant party purchasing the labor.
> Why on earth should labor be granted any legal preference?

So, being able to enter into a free association outside of work is a legal preference?

> They can associate outside of work as much as possible. What's being discussed is inside of work.

So, union organization and decisions are completely free, so long as they are not made on the clock?

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 03:47 pm (UTC)(link)
So, union organization and decisions are completely free, so long as they are not made on the clock?

That's how it should be.

[identity profile] madam-shapo.livejournal.com 2014-07-02 11:40 pm (UTC)(link)
I m almost ready to surrender. You're still wrong, though it's difficult to fight your wits.

[identity profile] madam-shapo.livejournal.com 2014-07-03 11:14 pm (UTC)(link)
In order for us to be on the same page, we need to debate this from a little different angle. Do you believe that employment is a contract?
If yes, then 2 sides agree on the conditions, like I work 8 hour a day and you pay me $100. What can and cannot do the employee, if the he doesn't like the pay?
I am really curious where you got the "socialist" ideas, for lack of the better word, you tell me the right word.

[identity profile] madam-shapo.livejournal.com 2014-07-04 01:46 am (UTC)(link)
OK, the benefits are part of compensation, right? Then they can offer any benefits they like; the employee is free to take it, negotiate or reject the contract. The employee cannot force the employer to enter into the specific contract, right? He can't demand the employer to pay him wages he thinks he deserves. So, where does the logic of demanding specific health benefits fit in?

[identity profile] madam-shapo.livejournal.com 2014-07-04 05:29 am (UTC)(link)
Absolute equality is not attainable. Even 2 men never get the same wage/package, because it is not possible to measure exactly and objectively the amount of employee contributions to the business. I am sure you have seen unhappy employees because they thought they weren't appreciated enough, or resentful ones that thought the college with higher pay wasn't doing good job.
In most companies employee share of health insurance is the same regardless age or condition. But some people use a lot more of care then others, in some cases the difference is paid by the company. Do you want to count this portion as a compensation too. In one word, life is very complex and it's not possible to make it absolutely equal or fair. From the other hand, by making something equal, we usually make something else unequal. What is the best approach? I think, fine tuning is the way to go. I already told you about regulated systems, top down command systems are not the best ones.
As you see, my reasoning is pragmatism. Agree?

Page 7 of 8