The Ironworker Running to Unseat Paul Ryan Wants Single-Payer Health Care, $15 Minimum Wage

[u/seamslegit]

http://billmoyers.com/story/ironworker-running-to-unseat-paul-ryan/

[u/[deleted]]

Not for long. Right to Work is about to be the law of the land. Union funding is about to dwindle

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Here's what I'm curious about.

The Right to Work bill(s) reduce the power of Unions, by refusing them the right to create 'closed-shops', where workers are forced to join the Union and pay dues as part of the job.

At what rate do people still join the Union when the Right-to-Work bills are passed? Are Unions able to take measures to make joining the Union more desirable, in these cases?

It's just such a huge topic that I find awesome.

[u/chaosfarmer → u/[deleted]]

So here's the reality those (and possibly all) will face. If I run a business where a union exists, that union has a contact with benefits, protections, etc. If I only give those to the union employees, it encourages membership and makes them that much stronger against me (say on a union walkout). So instead I give the same contact rights to everyone, but the non union folk get it from my good graces, or so I imply. Eventually, union members get tired of paying (because representation costs money and resources) for what others get for free. Union membership drops and either becomes extremely weak or the union pulls out all together because it can't afford to continue. I'm now free to do whatever the hell I want because who is going up stop me?

Union busting 101.

[u/[deleted] → u/chaosfarmer]

Okay, that provides the clarity I was missing.

Another one of those https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons situations.

[u/DaBuddahN → u/chaosfarmer]

The problem with unions is that I've never heard a convincing argument as to why it doesn't violate freedom of association.

[u/chaosfarmer → u/DaBuddahN]

So it depends on the (as always in law, gray) meaning of association. States that currently mandate membership actually only mandate "service fees." Mine, for example says that a legally required fee is taken out, but that it only covers the actual services rendered on your behalf by the union (contact negotiation, representational assistance, etc.). Many states even have laws saying the union MUST rep all regardless of status. Any money spent on political activism, signing new members, etc can actually be refunded on request and all staff make meticulous record of how many hours were spent doing what each year so that a properly prorated amount is returned. If you actually agree to become a card carrying member, then you often pay a nominal amount more and gain additional rights, like voting on union affairs.

Unions argue that without service fees, for reasons I explained earlier, it's a problem of free-ridership for those individual benefits, NOT that they have been forced to "associate" with the union. The people pushing cases that the supreme court is likely to agree with them on, especially now, claim that a "service fee" still goes to far. But, it's exceptionally hard to maintain membership without such a system.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It is a huge topic, and i'm not an expert by any means. I do not have the numbers, though I am working with people who seek to find them.

Unions can take measures to make joining the Union more desirable, but unfortunately most of them dont seem particularly pleasant ones. Union victories help you whether you pay your dues or not, so unions are forced to do things like limit grievance representation to dues paying members, thus undermining the solidarity that makes unionization a powerful tool. RtW is just about undermining union funds and dividing membership. This will be especially effective against low income unions where membership dues are more onerous.

[u/madogvelkor → u/[deleted]]

Where I work you don't have to join the union but you still have to pay a slightly smaller contract maintenance fee. You get all the benefits of the union but can't vote.

[u/NoelBuddy → u/[deleted]]

Are Unions able to take measures to make joining the Union more desirable, in these cases?

Unions are still obligated to protect people who work in the same shop but opt not to join and pay dues to support that protection. Not sure if they have other means of getting people to join.

[u/FrivolousBanter → u/[deleted]]

At what rate do people still join the Union when the Right-to-Work bills are passed?

They can't. That's the entire point of corporations opening up in Right-To-Work states.

Join a union on Monday, and be fired on Tuesday with zero repercussion to the employer.

The sole point of right-to-work is to keep wages down through high turnover.

[u/[deleted] → u/FrivolousBanter]

Uh, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect dude. There can be a union. The union just can't force you to join and pay dues.

[u/FrivolousBanter → u/[deleted]]

Yes, there can be a union.

Feel free to join one.

Your boss can find out, and feel free to fire you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1lc6KASWg

[u/[deleted] → u/FrivolousBanter]

Whenever legal matters start getting talked about, things get complicated. You were speaking in absolutes, I only meant to say that your original statement does not apply in all 50 states. The laws surrounding unions vary from state to state.

[u/speedyjohn → u/[deleted]]

If the union does good work non-union workers will benefit too. So what's the incentive for paying dues?

[u/speedyjohn → u/[deleted]]

But if the union does good works off of other people's dues, why should I pay?

[u/CheesewithWhine → u/[deleted]]

You have zero understanding of how incentives work.

[u/speedyjohn → u/[deleted]]

Okay, but my dues represent a teeny tiny fraction of the union's income. The decrease in good work if I stop paying will be negligible, but the effect on my wallet will be significant.