Right-to-work law: yay or nay?

I disagree. When I retired a last year, I was earning roughly twenty times that when I started. The wife has tripled her income in just the last ten years alone.

We both did so by steadily increasing our education (college in high-demand, high-requirement, fields), taking advantage of every job training program offered, maintaining high work ethics, changing jobs (fairly to our existing employers) when opportunities presented themselves, and similar to make ourselves as valuable as possible to our employers.

As a result, we maintain good relations with every past employer, most heaping praise on their experience with us. I personally take great pride in that.

 

Well maybe because they could do the job just as well as someone in the union. Thats my point. Does being in the union give you knowledge, training, certification, etc... that makes you better at the job than a non-union worker? If yes, great - I think most people in this situation would join the union. If not - then probably not so much. I understand that there would also be some douchebags that would not join - even if it was in their best interest - just because they are cheap bastards. There are ways to deal with them. But seriously - if what the union offers isn't apparent and obvious - why should someone have to join. Making a person join is against their 1st amendment rights - specifically the right of free association - basically your right to choose who you associate with and who you don't.

 

I would have to say that non union employees are more competitive than union employees. When you are in fear for loosing your job on a daily basis you train yourself with better discipline, often diversify and expand horizons, grow yourself and self worth for sake of upward mobility with current or next employer. That is not to say that union peeps are lazy or anything... its just that they are slightly more complacent.

It's like a dog sled. Up front you have strong powerful huskies who encourage rest of the pack to keep trying. Each one strives to be the head dog. Anyone past 3rd row can be found growling and scowling and fighting among each other so dog usher is forced to constantly break up fights and keep them in check. And that is what human environment is like. Up front you get the corporate grinders who put their blinders on and compete among each other trying to outperform and in the back you get union people who carry a heavy burden of drama, jealousy, resentment.

Having been a union member for about 8 years... man ... that is all people talked about. So and so has more hours, so and so has less hours, so and so is a slacker but still gets paid the same... so and so etc etc. In corporate environment most of topics that were openly discussed in union environment are taboo so people concentrate on work.

In the grand scheme of things I do not think unions are entirely too bad... its just that politics and misaligned ideology sort of tarnish entire thing.

 

While I don't particularly like unions, I agree that one should not reap the benefits of the union. If your job benefits are negotiated by the union you should pay. My biggest gripe would be paying union dues that go to political candidates or causes. I shouldn't be forced to fund the campaign of someone I don't agree with.

 

Shout out for keeping a this discussion somewhat civilized and making it all the way to page 5!

 

Like others have stated unions had their place many many years ago but times have changed. Look what the UAW is doing to the US Automotive Industry.

 

^^^ This person has described present day Unions the best, and I say this by the obervances of my mother as well who works for Delphi Packard. She constantly gets bumped from one shift to another, and the experience of the employee stealing her time slot is of no concern, only seniority. I think it's a bad thing when people are ok with that concept. The success of the people also depends on the success of the company, it's a mutual gain, or should be at least, but what does the company or the quality of the product gain by this way of doing business. I ask this only because I guess I don't understand it. Of course I do also realize though that this is my opinion and nothing more.

Edit: Another thing I witnessed, and this is not to add argument, just to state a point: My mother tore her ACL on the job. She did not benefit by the Union having her back, she suffered because of the Union and the company being at odds with each other, and it took 7 months before she could get the surgery she needed.

 

corporate profits are at all time high's (trillions on the sidelines) and the work force is down. I see it everywhere in manufacturing today. It's a big excuse to weed out the deadwood for a lot of company's, the remaining workers doing twice as much for stagnant wages in general. There are always exceptions. I have plenty of friends working crazy hours because they are afraid to lose their jobs in this economy.they have to because the work force is much smaller. This is what I witness currently.

 

this

 

Again - the argument that someone who doesn't join the union should not reap the benefits negotiated by the union just doesn't play. Should the company pay a non-union worker less? If the worker is just as capable - why? What if the company paid the non-union worker more? It is feasible that the company could consider the non-union worker more valuable. For example, they could require that worker to change jobs, work locations, shifts, etc... without interference from union restrictions. And that is exactly what the non-union dues paying worker would have to do. Since they aren't part of the union - they are on thier own - they have to do what the company asks them to do. So they are not getting all of the benefits of a union member. The union member knows the union, and all its members, will stand behind them if the company asks them to do something they consider unreasonable, right. The non-union member is basically and independent contractor - they are on thier own. If a person determines that based on how they expect the company to treat them they would rather be indepedent, non-union, and pay no union dues - then what is the problem. Someone in the union, who is paying their dues because of the protection the union affords them - would surely think this person is stupid to be "out there on their own". However, if the union workers truly believe that this non-union, non-dues paying worker is getting all the same benefits that they are - then you have to seriously question why the union exists in that situation. Right?

 

If a person is working based on merit, then YES! You should not reap the benefits of the union. Unions negotiate automatic pay raises and benefits with the company. Should a non-union employee get that benefit? No. If you want to work based on your merit (it's a choice in right to work) then you should accept all of the consequences that come along with that. If you want the benefits that the union gives, then you join the union and pay your dues.

If you are truely an independant contractor then you negotiate your pay and benefits.

 

You missed the point of my comment entirely. I don't want to talk about corporate profits. Most of the wildest claims associated with that focus on gross profits, not net profits. Yes, gross profits are at an all time high, but so are costs (all time high). Likewise, there's little gain from talking about business trying to keep costs down. Business has been doing that for centuries, perhaps since the concept of business itself started. In other words, it's normal and to be expected.

The issue is what we, as employees, can do about it. For example, if your wages are stagnant, do something to make yourself more valuable to an employer. Why should your employer pay you more to only do what you're already doing? Increase your education (so you can do your job better), develop new job skills, or whatever. If wages in the career field itself are stagnant, go back to school and learn the skills necessary to get into another, more advanced, career field with better pay.

In other words, when many are complaining about wages or jobs being stagnant, they're usually talking about themselves being stagnant. They're not doing anything (or enough) to change their situation.

 

I believe you meant revenue here. Profit is what you have after you pay all the bills.....

But there are companies making record profits amid cries of how tough the times are.

 

This!

 

I agree with that to a point. They should increase your wage to at least keep up with inflation, otherwise you're getting a pay cut even though you're doing what they require.

I used to tell my fellow workers that they had to do what it necessary to make themselves more valuable than the next worker (e.g get an education, learn to run more types of machines). In a smaller shop, when a company decides it needs to lays someone off, they're going to pick the workers who bring the least.

 

I thought the same, but Gross Profit is just the profit after you subtract the cost of making the goods. It doesn't include overhead (e.g management, rent or building costs, machinery), taxes and interest, which can be substantial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_profit

 

I guess that definition could skew things quite a bit without figuring in management......

Learn something new every day.

 

Right to Work please. I can chose whether the union or not is for me. That is what I would call freedom of choice.

 

You are making a very broad statement. You are assuming ALL corporations are making record profits, and ALL corporations are breaking the backs of the work force. Since this thread started with Michigan look at the UAW and the big 3. GM is still owned a majority by the gov't and their stock index is a fraction what it use to be. Ford's stock has not recovered, and Chrysler is owned by a foreign company. 2 of these MAJOR companies were on the verge of going under. Ford wasn't too far off. Thousands of the white collar jobs with these big 3 are no longer around and needed. Production is down that much. My Aunt was one of them. However, the plant UAW worker jobs remained despite lower production. They didn't even get a pay break. Their job was protected and remained, yet many of them were not needed. Companies exist to make money. People take a risk and start their own company because they want a better life for themselves. They deserve the most. When labor unions cry foul for the top making money, and trying to squeeze the company it's not right.


Look at the steel industry. Labor unions did just about everything they could to drive production outside of the U.S. Drive through the river towns around Pittsburgh. It's pretty depressing and the locals are still waiting for their steel job back.

 

Also growing the business, R&D for new products, advertising, and similar. Net is after all outlays. If you own a business, you know there just isn't that much left after all expenses.