One more step closer to The Handmaid's Tale.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Next stop:

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In right to work states, Non-union members must be included in the contracts that Unions negotiate. That is a free rider problem. What about right-to-work makes that go away?

It eliminates the free rider program when instituted nationally. Those people would no longer need to be included in those contracts.

The problem is the NLRA.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

How does a national application of right-to-work, eliminate the free rider issue? The free raiders aren't people in other states, they're people at the company the union is negotiating with who are not in the union, but reap the benefits, like increased pay, increased worker safety, or general improvements in working conditions.

In so far as those improvements come from union bargaining, Anyone not in the union is a Free Rider.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In so far as those improvements come from union bargaining, Anyone not in the union is a Free Rider.

By not having those unions represent those people, there are no longer free riders. There's nothing to ride on, as those not in the union are not subject to the contract.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> 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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> 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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is why we need national right to work, to supercede the NLRA which is what is causing the free ridership.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> 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?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> 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?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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

That's how it should be.