Unions... Forced Dues???

[Gameface]

I think CBA agreements/benefits should only apply to union members. Don't pay the dues don't get the benefits. But the choice to join and pay or not should be up to each individual employee. Not forced.

Honestly, companies would rather not deal with unions. If this were the case I bet the non-union employees would get things the union employees didn't get, like higher pay. I'd gladly give up my union cherished pension for higher pay and higher 401k matching. This last round of CBA negotiations the union laser focused on keeping the pension, which they kept, but I believe they gave up a lot to do that. For instance, they have a cap on how much our insurance premiums can go up the first two years under our three year agreement, but no cap on the third year. Our CBA expires in February of 2018, but our premiums can go up an unlimited amount starting January of 2018. I've heard union members say that we can negotiate those premiums on our next contract but I think they're missing the fact that our employer and the insurance companies are going to set the 2018 rates before that contract is negotiated and we are not going to bring those rates back down from whatever the company sets going into 2018. That ship will have already sailed. We also took a payout in lieu of a raise for 2015 and our raises in 2016 and 2017 are 0.5% smaller than the raises on the previous contract. Since raises compound on all previous raises that would have been off the table for me, but it seemed the pension was the focus and not our pay.

Many employees have legitimate gripes regarding our union and are not members for that reason. Many would be happy if the union didn't exist. They don't just benefit from what the union negotiates, they are stuck with what the union negotiates, good or bad. If they feel like the bad outweighs the good then there's no reason they should be forced to pay into the union.

I'm a union member, btw. I've debated leaving the union, but since I'm sort of stuck with the union I'd rather have a strong union than a weak union.

 

[gandalfe]

Yes, but that was when unions focused solely on jobs, working conditions and wages. The problem with many is that workers are paying dues for the union to pursue certain outside agendas, throw support behind specific political candidates, etc. My wife pays dues as a nurse and it seems like her union does everything BUT advocate for the well-being of their nurses.

Actually, a union CANNOT use your dues to support candidates. They can, however, solicit donations for a PAC that does.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think that if you want to get the benefits that the union fought to get in the contract (raises, 401K company matches, pto increases, pension etc) and want the union reps to go to bat for you in disputes (disciplinary discrepancies, suspensions, firings) then you should have to pay the dues.

If none of that stuff is important to you and you want to with things on your own then you shouldn't have to pay dues

I'm sympathetic to this position. If job benefits, pay, work conditions are better as a result of collective bargaining, and all workers benefit as a result of this collective bargaining, whether members of the union, then, Yes, I do think they should pay dues. If they don't want to pay the dues, then let them bargain their own pay/benefits/hours/etc. without the benefit of a collective behind them.

Unions, like any movement/organization/institution/etc., are prone to abuse and manipulation. In my opinion, those who believe that we have reached some post-union state where the power structure/owners of capital are somehow so much more enlightened and inclined to treat workers "fairly" are incredibly naive. Human nature hasn't changed in the short interim labor unions have been around. There has to be some countervailing power to that of the owners of capital, or other power figures, otherwise the pendulum is due to swing too far back in the other direction. Striking a balance is an ongoing struggle, but getting rid of unions is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Gameface]

I'm sympathetic to this position. If job benefits, pay, work conditions are better as a result of collective bargaining, and all workers benefit as a result of this collective bargaining, whether members of the union, then, Yes, I do think they should pay dues. If they don't want to pay the dues, then let them bargain their own pay/benefits/hours/etc. without the benefit of a collective behind them.

Unions, like any movement/organization/institution/etc., are prone to abuse and manipulation. In my opinion, those who believe that we have reached some post-union state where the power structure/owners of capital are somehow so much more enlightened and inclined to treat workers "fairly" are incredibly naive. Human nature hasn't changed in the short interim labor unions have been around. There has to be some countervailing power to that of the owners of capital, or other power figures, otherwise the pendulum is due to swing too far back in the other direction. Striking a balance is an ongoing struggle, but getting rid of unions is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The group that wants teh non union members to get exactly what the union got is...wait for it...the ****ing Union! Can you imagine how easy it would be to break unions if after a CBA agreement the company offered a slightly different (let's say no pension) package to the non union members that was clearly more desirable? Higher pay, more flexible work schedule, exemption from the seniority based system for open positions and forced overtime?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The group that wants teh non union members to get exactly what the union got is...wait for it...the ****ing Union! Can you imagine how easy it would be to break unions if after a CBA agreement the company offered a slightly different (let's say no pension) package to the non union members that was clearly more desirable? Higher pay, more flexible work schedule, exemption from the seniority based system for open positions and forced overtime?

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. What's the odds that a company would offer non-union workers better pay/benefits? Is there someplace where this scenario has played out in one form or another?

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. What's the odds that a company would offer non-union workers better pay/benefits? Is there someplace where this scenario has played out in one form or another?

Umm, companies don't want to have to deal with unions. I could easily see them setting up a pay-for-performance wage system to counter the lock-step set wages and raises the union negotiates. So people who perform better will get bigger raises and have a higher ceiling.

Why wouldn't they? All the top performers would leave the union. It would motivate people to work harder. The contrast between the higher productivity/higher paid non-union employees and the no-skill mentality union die hards would be hard to avoid. It would be a quick death for the union.

This is the only place I've worked with a union. I can tell you that employers don't just **** on employees because they aren't in a union. This place paid above market wages and had much better than average benefits before the union. Why? They were still greedy capitalists before the union.

 

[♪alt13]

If you work for a company that has voted to unionize you should have to pay the dues, you still have the freedom to work somewhere else. If you can't find work that replaces your wage and benefits perhaps the union has something to do with that. If thee Union sucks then vote not to confirm it next time around.

My anecdotal union experience is with the IBEW. The exact same position at the time made $21/hr w/ benefits in Oregon a forced dues state, $17/hr w/ benefits in Utah Union but dues not forced, and $10 in Texas w/out benefits no union.

 

[Gameface]

How does getting rid of a union work? We just got a new CBA and there was no talk of abolishing the union. And what about people in different positions/departments? Is it possible for a certain group to leave the union and/or join a different union that better represents what they do?

In the department I work in less than half the people are in the union. I've heard secondhand that the union president has made disparaging comments about how people in my department are treated (given preferential treatment). I don't feel like the union we have is a good match for people in my field. I think we'd do just fine without the union or with a union that had our specific interests at heart.

 

[♪alt13]

How does getting rid of a union work? We just got a new CBA and there was no talk of abolishing the union. And what about people in different positions/departments? Is it possible for a certain group to leave the union and/or join a different union that better represents what they do?

In the department I work in less than half the people are in the union. I've heard secondhand that the union president has made disparaging comments about how people in my department are treated (given preferential treatment). I don't feel like the union we have is a good match for people in my field. I think we'd do just fine without the union or with a union that had our specific interests at heart.

I don't kow too much but if I recall correctly when I was in a union there was a vote to confirm the union. I think I only did that once but with us it was like every 3 years or something.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Umm, companies don't want to have to deal with unions. I could easily see them setting up a pay-for-performance wage system to counter the lock-step set wages and raises the union negotiates. So people who perform better will get bigger raises and have a higher ceiling.

Why wouldn't they? All the top performers would leave the union. It would motivate people to work harder. The contrast between the higher productivity/higher paid non-union employees and the no-skill mentality union die hards would be hard to avoid. It would be a quick death for the union.

This is the only place I've worked with a union. I can tell you that employers don't just **** on employees because they aren't in a union. This place paid above market wages and had much better than average benefits before the union. Why? They were still greedy capitalists before the union.

It's good that you work for a more 'enlightened' firm where it comes to worker pay/benefits/etc. I'm not sure, however, that I'd equate 'greedy capitalist' with enlightened bosses, however. Capitalists have always been greedy and have only begun to treat and pay workers well, in the West primarily, as a result of the rise of collective bargaining and progressive legislation. Absent either of the two, I imagine that greedy capitalists will go right back to doing whatever they can to exploit their workforce. I have less faith in the good intentions or wisdom of bosses/capitalists than you do, or at least it appears to me you do. I see little historical or contemporary precedent, outside of notable exceptions, to conclude otherwise.

 

[fishonjazz]

I just wanted to add something.
I noticed that GF was talking about the fact the union may have (and probably did) give up some things in the last negotiation due to the fact that they fought so hard to keep our pension. It seems that maybe he would have rather had a little bit bigger raise or something and maybe we give up the pension.

I think that the pension was fought for so ferociously because it is a bigger deal than people realize. I know that sometimes people think that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, meaning they would take the lesser reward now rather than wait for what might be a greater reward later.

If I retired today my pension would be about $400 per month.... If I retire at 65 my pension would be over $2000 per month (according the calculator from my retirement firms website).
That is pretty damn fantastic. $2000 per month plus my 401K (The union negotiated a higher match from the company on the 401K also), plus social security (if there is any) is pretty decent income for when I'm an old(er) dude.
Take away that $2000 and I'm going to be struggling.

There is a reason that allot of companies have stopped giving their employees pensions.... They are a great benefit for the employee and expensive for the company to pay so most companies want to save that money and the American pensions are going away at a rapid rate. I'm thankful to still have one.

 

[Stoked]

I just wanted to add something.
I noticed that GF was talking about the fact the union may have (and probably did) give up some things in the last negotiation due to the fact that they fought so hard to keep our pension. It seems that maybe he would have rather had a little bit bigger raise or something and maybe we give up the pension.

I think that the pension was fought for so ferociously because it is a bigger deal than people realize. I know that sometimes people think that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, meaning they would take the lesser reward now rather than wait for what might be a greater reward later.

If I retired today my pension would be about $400 per month.... If I retire at 65 my pension would be over $2000 per month (according the calculator from my retirement firms website).
That is pretty damn fantastic. $2000 per month plus my 401K (The union negotiated a higher match from the company on the 401K also), plus social security (if there is any) is pretty decent income for when I'm an old(er) dude.
Take away that $2000 and I'm going to be struggling.

There is a reason that allot of companies have stopped giving their employees pensions.... They are a great benefit for the employee and expensive for the company to pay so most companies want to save that money and the American pensions are going away at a rapid rate. I'm thankful to still have one.

Same here. I am counting more on my 401k, pension and anything else I have going than I am social security. You have to. Millions more have been added to the Social Security Disability rolls (happens during every economic downturn) and the ratio of active workers to active retirees/disability recipients has taken a hard turn toward the recipients. Not enough workers to sustain it as is.