That's my number one beef with RTW. Why should unions have to protect non union employees who aren't paying dues? If they choose to go non union then they willingly choose to not be represented.

 

I don't get it, either.

 

Although as I said some time ago, we will see a state legislature that is very pro-management and anti-line worker.

That's my number one beef with RTW. Why should unions have to protect non union employees who aren't paying dues? If they choose to go non union then they willingly choose to not be represented.

 

Free Loaders.

 

Not just the protection but the money the healthcare the pension the vacation plans. They should have to negotiate their own stuff.

 

I don't get it, either.

 

Although as I said some time ago, we will see a state legislature that is very pro-management and anti-line worker.

If the link is accurate, it is completely up to the union leaders whether or not they represent non-member workers.

 

The myth of "free riders" in right-to-work states >> Publications >> Washington Policy Center

 

Summary of the “free rider” problem

 

Opponents of worker protections says right-to-work laws give non-union members a “free ride” in the workplace, enabling them to benefit from union representation and union-secured benefits without sharing in the cost of negotiating those benefits. They argue the “free riders” ultimately result in more and more workers leaving the union, undermining the stability and financing of the union itself. For that reason opponents often describe efforts to pass right-to-work laws as “union-busting.”

This study explores the myth behind the “free rider” argument against right-to-work protections and offers a policy alternative that would satisfy unions’ concern.

Background

As more and more states debate whether a right-to-work law is right for their state, the issue has become increasingly charged with campaigns of misinformation and rhetoric.

For example, a right-to-work law does not prohibit employees from voluntarily joining a labor union, nor does it prohibit them from paying union dues voluntarily. Labor unions operate in right-to-work states, but the law protects each workers’ civil rights and freedom of association by prohibiting the payment of union dues from being a required condition of employment. The purpose of a right-to-work law is to protect anyone from being forced to choose between paying money to a cause he or she might oppose and making a living.

The arguments against right-to-work claim such laws are designed to cripple unions by allowing “free riders” to take advantage of the representation and services provided by a union without sharing in the cost. Right-to-work opponents say federal law requires unions to represent all workers at a company, whether or not they pay union dues, leaving unions in an impossible situation. As one union executive puts it:

“Under a right-to-work law, people could withdraw from the union and wouldn’t have to pay anything. But we are still obligated by federal law to represent them like we would represent a member.”

This statement is not accurate.

Federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members. Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions can represent only their dues-paying members under a “members-only” contract. The benefits secured under these contracts apply only to dues-paying members. As noted by the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board William Gould, “the law now permits ‘members-only’ bargaining for employees.”

Unions are only required to represent non-union workers if union executives choose to take on exclusive bargaining representation. Exclusive bargaining representation gives unions a monopoly, because it specifies that only one union may organize and represent employees in a unit. Employees may not represent themselves when negotiating with their employer, nor may any other union compete for membership.

This monopoly bargaining option means a union has decided to represent and negotiate on behalf of all employees in a company, regardless of whether every employee wants that representation. It also eliminates competition from other unions seeking to represent the same workers.

However, if unions opt for exclusive representation, the law then requires them to negotiate equally for all workers. That is, as the exclusive representative, the union cannot negotiate a lower wage that discriminates against non-members.

If a union decides against exclusive monopoly bargaining, it is not required to represent non-members. In that case only the members with a signed contract are required to pay dues and the union negotiates only for those members. In practice unions almost always seek exclusive representation status, since it gives them a monopoly position in the workplace.

One study explains the advantages union executives gain when they choose exclusive representation in the workplace:

“They [unions] prefer exclusive representative status because it enables them to get a better contract for their supporters. Consider seniority systems: They ensure that everyone gets raises and promotions at the same rate, irrespective of individual performance. If a union negotiated a members-only contract with a seniority system, high-performing workers would refuse to join.

 

Those workers would negotiate a separate contract with performance pay. The best workers would get ahead faster, leaving less money and fewer positions available for those on the seniority scale. The union wants everyone in the seniority system—especially those it holds back.”

That's my number one beef with RTW. Why should unions have to protect non union employees who aren't paying dues? If they choose to go non union then they willingly choose to not be represented.

 

They still help make up total headcount and that is a leveraged position for the union...even though they don't get any dues out of them

I have been in a Union(Teamsters) and I have been in Management on the other side of Unions( Teamsters). I can see both sides. However one thing I could never figure out is why all employees could not get fair and equal representation without a union? I have heard all the reasons from both sides believe me. Is it not worry some to think we have to pay to be treated fairly?

 

I was turned in for jumping on the line to help get a truck out in time so the times would be met on my last job in a union by the very employees I was helping. That kind left a sour taste in my mouth. That employee was the laziest in the center and he could not be gotten rid of. Again I am still torn, I hope it does not hurt you and your family @PurplePride92.

I have been in a Union(Teamsters) and I have been in Management on the other side of Unions( Teamsters). I can see both sides. However one thing I could never figure out is why all employees could not get fair and equal representation without a union? I have heard all the reasons from both sides believe me. Is it not worry some to think we have to pay to be treated fairly?

 

I was turned in for jumping on the line to help get a truck out in time so the times would be met on my last job in a union by the very employees I was helping. That kind left a sour taste in my mouth. That employee was the laziest in the center and he could not be gotten rid of. Again I am still torn, I hope it does not hurt you and your family @PurplePride92.

 

Thanks, Jesse. The more I am learning the less concerned I am. Status quo at Corning has been to allow folks to leave the unions but they get the exact same things that union members get. At their plants in Virginia and North Carolina they have all remained over 90% union so I don't anticipate much change. I do hate that folks that leave the union are afforded everything that the union has given us. Seems backwards and stupid. If I chose to leave the union I'd rather negotiate my own terms and not have anything to do with the union at all. Seems like that would be the whole point of Right to Work but at the end of the day it is just an opportunity to reap the benefits of being in the union without

being in the union. Just seems weird.

Thanks, Jesse. The more I am learning the less concerned I am. Status quo at Corning has been to allow folks to leave the unions but they get the exact same things that union members get. At their plants in Virginia and North Carolina they have all remained over 90% union so I don't anticipate much change. I do hate that folks that leave the union are afforded everything that the union has given us. Seems backwards and stupid. If I chose to leave the union I'd rather negotiate my own terms and not have anything to do with the union at all. Seems like that would be the whole point of Right to Work but at the end of the day it is just an opportunity to reap the benefits of being in the union without

being in the union. Just seems weird.

 

Just for an in-state comparison's sake, what is union representation at your plant as opposed to Carrollton?

Just for an in-state comparison's sake, what is union representation at your plant as opposed to Carrollton?

 

What is Carrollton? Not familiar with them. We have 260 union members in my plant.

What is Carrollton? Not familiar with them. We have 260 union members in my plant.

 

Dow Corning has had an operation along the Ohio River in Carroll Co. for as long as I can remember.

Dow Corning has had an operation along the Ohio River in Carroll Co. for as long as I can remember.

 

They aren't with us. They aren't related to my Corning family of factories. Whole different company.

@Colonels_Wear_Blue

 

 

How will prevailing wage affect your industry?

@Colonels_Wear_Blue

 

 

How will prevailing wage affect your industry?

 

I would be curious to see how this plays out. I believe that the primary purpose on the prevailing wage issue was to open State contracts to merit shops.

 

I would suspect that mainly impacts road construction, although I'm sure the State does other vertical construction related work as well.

@Colonels_Wear_Blue

 

 

How will prevailing wage affect your industry?

 

Well, in the immediate, I think you'll see the number of construction projects increase - particularly in some of the small town areas where getting contractors capable of completing work in accordance with PW laws is significantly harder. There are also going to be a lot of trunk-slammer type contractors popping up and many of them subsequently failing for a while.

 

Obviously, construction costs will drop, but I think you're likely to see that level out somewhere simply because of complexity that exists in current day construction contracts. The size of an "average" construction contract is insane - I'm talking 75 pages worth of insane. The size of an "average" set of project construction specifications is insane - often times thousands of pages for even the simplest of projects. The fact is, completing work to the specified standard required in this day and age is what mandates construction cost. Wage determination only adds to that cost.

 

I will also say I think getting rid of prevailing wage rates will be the death of the carpenters union in Kentucky. I can't speak for other construction unions, which tend to see more work in privately held industrial facilities than the carpenters do.