Unions vs. Government

So say we use unions, entirely by voluntary association, to achieve things that people look to the government for. Setting a minimum wage, for example. Or even a guaranteed minimum income. Establishing worker safety rules and benefits and so on. Maybe even things like food safety standards.

To the extent that union association and solidarity was genuinely voluntary (I understand that historically this isn't always the case -- I would simply point out that it's even less the case for capitalism), would that solve the moral dilemmas that come with the involuntary nature of government?

I know the republicans would object, because their agenda is twisted and evil and inhumane. The idea of benefiting workers is exactly what they're trying to avoid, out of some sense of romantic feudalism or something, I don't know.

But for everyone else, who isn't trying to shoot themselves in the foot to get ahead in the race, what would be the moral objections?

And the practical and logistical issues. What would arise? What steps would have to be taken to guarantee that union association was kept strictly voluntary? What would be the drawbacks? And to the greatest extent of specificity possible, what should be the specifics of their agenda?

I know I'm gonna get a bunch of stories about how some businesses have collapsed, some of them while having unions, and this will be presented as evidence of the dangers of unionizing. Okay, so what mechanisms would you put in place to avoid that?

But mostly I'm thinking about the moral side of the equation. What's the moral objection to unions?

 

You cannot have a voluntary union.

How would that have any possibility of working?

If you have a factory with 100 employees and 50 of them form a union what is going to happen?

The union employees may threaten a strike to get a one dollar raise so what is the company going to do, give half their employees more than the other half? If that happens the union will demand dues from them since they are benefitting from union action.

What if the company says that they still have enough non union workers to produce so therefore they will simply fire anyone who strikes. That makes the union ineffective.

 

Coercive force is coercive force no matter whether it is the government doing it or a union. A living wage will become unlivable so quick it will make your head swim. Trying to allow people to skate on someone else's dime never works out well in the end. The current minimum wage of 7.25 is one of the reasons that it takes 15 to 20 an hour to get buy.

 

There's little voluntary about unions in the US, protected by federal law as they are... from voluntary, market forces.

Also, the statement about capitalism being less voluntary than the many datapoints of union thuggishness is asinine.

 

The main moral issue is that the purpose of unions is to protect the workers alone (specifically the subset of workers represented by that union, be that defined by membership, place of work or job). In theory governments are meant to protect everyone equally, balancing decisions for the good of the whole. Unions can certainly play a role in lobbying and campaigning regarding the kind of policies you're talking about but they can't be the be-all and end-all.

It works perfectly well in Europe (at least, works no worse than in US).

 

I have no moral objection to unions. I believe that people have the right to freely associate.

What I do object to is when unions use the government to force people into joining as a condition of employment.

 

By convincing people to voluntarily join, mostly by showing the benefits so that they can make an entirely rational decision.

So the union doesn't get to collect dues from people that aren't members. If the company plays the interesting strategic move of giving everyone raises regardless of membership, then the union has achieved its goal and can probably convince more people to join on the grounds that something working is a compelling argument in its favor. Either way, this sort of back and forth is what should arrive at logical market values for everyone's labor and wages, right? According to basic capitalist theory, anyway.

Then the union is ineffective and should have done a better job of making its case to those workers that didn't join.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. Unions have to be voluntary if they're going to be a good idea. If they're going to start using their influence on the government, then they might as well be corporations.

 

Agreed.

So what's the alternative? Unlivable wages? How does that work out for anybody in the long term?

So if every time the minimum wage goes up, the cost of living also goes up ... and I agree, that does seem to be the case ... then what's the solution?

 

Much like many businesses that make deals with the government to make their services compulsory. Hence the problem with privatized prisons, police forces, insurance ... banks ...

Ideally, the only protecting that unions should need is the constitutional right to freedom of assembly and speech.

What do you think about businesses that make their workers sign contracts stating that they won't discuss their wages with other employees, thus making unions impossible?

That's a non-response. You've never heard of capitalist thuggishness?

Actually, you probably never have, have you? It's not 'framed' that way in your paradigm, I'm guessing. I'd start with the Cold War, myself.

 

Nobody has a problem with the existence of unions any more than they have a problem with the Moose or Elks clubs.

What is objectionable is government coercing employers collecting dues for the unions. Let the unions collect their own dues.

 

There are 24 states (mostly Southern) that are 'right to work' states. In other words, the employees have the choice to be union or non-union. The pay scales are the same for both groups. The difference? The non-union workers have no recourse to any conditions the employer sets and do not recieve the same benefits as the union workers. Union apprentices receive free training in their trade (on their own time) with step raises for advancement in skills. Payment of union dues are the responsibility of the individual members and the employer has no responsibility to collect the dues.

 

The collection of union dues by the company is in the contract between the company and the union

not Required by law

 

Nothing because the NLRB requires a vote of 50% plus 1 in order to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining agent. So if only 50 vote, there will be no union.

Under federal law you cannot be fired for striking; however, you can be permanently replaced but have to go onto a preferential hiring list so that you have to be given preference before they can hire anyone else. As a side note, very few unions strike these days, instead relying on "mobilization" which is performing legal concerted activities under the law designed to put pressure on companies to bargain fairly.

- - - Updated - - -

That is correct; it is an non-mandatory subject of bargaining.

 

That would be illegal under the NLRA of 1935. Once a union has been certified as the collective bargaining agent, all wages and compensation must be made available to the union. Nor can a company require an employee to sign any document agreeing to not support nor vote for a labor union or labor organization and at the same time require the employee to sign an agreement supporting the union or labor organization as well.

 

Can't be sure if this is your dream, or everyone else's nightmare. It would never work. You will wind up with the same class warfare the liberal crowd is waging now.

Your statements about republicans are insulting and unwarranted. Your opinion is noted and summarily dismissed as unfounded since it is only in your mind guided by the talking points provided to you. Liberals cannot seem to provide an OP in hopes of fostering a valuable discussion without bashing the right. They just cannot help themselves You almost had something of value there, but you had to trash it and make it worthless.

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

In Australia it is illegal for someone to be required to join a union. If someone objects on grounds of conscience then - in my State - they can elect to pay the same amount they would have paid in dues to a charity. If they don't want to do that then they don't have to.

A poster mentioned a union workplace with 50% union members. That may be the case in Australia, the irony is that if the union gets a good deal for its members in that workplace then everyone, union member or not, gets the deal. Now, where is the morality in that? There have been suggestions that non-union members should pay a fixed fee when an enterprise agreement (what is called in North America a labor contract) is agreed. But as far as I know that hasn't eventuated. So those who don't pay union fees can get the benefits under the EA that the union members pay for. Nothing the union can do about it except to put it to the non-members that they have a moral obligation to pay up or join.

Anyway, on a personal level, having been a senior, full-time union officer myself, I am totally against requiring someone to join a union.

 

Taxcutter says:
That's only true in "right to work" states.

- - - Updated - - -

Taxcutter says:
That's "right to work" in a nutshell.

 

Yeah, no. You'll find the common denominator of all those things is government, not capitalism or private enterprise. There's nothing voluntary about buying govt fiat power towards corporate advantage. Just because they are businesses doesn't mean that defines business. What it does define though is government.

 

Quit killing jobs. Labor is, like everything else subject to the law of supply and demand. Look at the situations in N. Dakota and Midlands Texas.

 

In the US Toyota plants are not unionized. GM plants are. One is far more efficient and have better working conditions and produce a better product and haven't gone bankrupt. Guess which one it is.

 

Yes you can. It depends on the state laws for association. Even in Texas there are union and Texas is a right to work state. In that environment, you may have 50 union members and 50 non union members. But if the union negotiates a pay raise, then that pay raise is for all employees at the company.

 

I have been on both sides, years ago I was a union steward.

In the old days the unions were good for the working man.

They are responsible for many of the benefits we have today.

They have evolved into a socialist arm of the democratic party

that pushes the lefts agenda at the expense of the real working class.

I really don't like the idea of being forced to join a union, as we

all know they use intimidation and violence for this and during strikes.

In the end, they take your money and give it to the socialist's so they can

further destroy America. Government unions are a clear and present Danger to America.

 

Right to work law states
Your employer Or the union can not take any action against you if you refuse to join a union
make make your refusal any part of their consideration When hiring you

I have a associates in labor development
I went to the labor institute in New Brunswick New Jersey
on Rutgers campus 1966 1967
I was a UAW bargaining committee man

Although it's been a few years I don't think the law changed