We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

13th amendment has something to do with union officials demanding a cut of actual employees salary? I saw a union estimate they will lose 200000 members and that will be $220 million a year. $1000 per employee. And you bring up the 13th? WTF?

I would like to have someone whose job it is to negotiate my salary and working conditions, but whom I don't have to pay.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would like to have someone whose job it is to negotiate my salary and working conditions, but whom I don't have to pay.

Then it would be great if a union only negotiated on behalf of people who wanted such representation and were willing to pay for it, and didn't compel people to be members to keep their job. There are plenty of people who don't want to be "organized".

I would much prefer to be able to negotiate for what is important to me, not at the expense of protecting others who may not be doing their jobs.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Then it would be great if a union only negotiated on behalf of people who wanted such representation and were willing to pay for it, and didn't compel people to be members to keep their job. There are plenty of people who don't want to be "organized".

These people are called "freeloaders" and "delusional."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

These people are called "freeloaders" and "delusional."

Maybe cap the union dues so no one will ever pay more in union dues than their income is increased by getting paid union wages.

Oh, wait, that's a meaningless limit, isn't it?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

These people are called "freeloaders" and "delusional."

Freeriders are the opposite of delusional. They are very rational.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Freeriders are the opposite of delusional. They are very rational.

Point.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Freeriders are the opposite of delusional. They are very rational.

This.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Then it would be great if a union only negotiated on behalf of people who wanted such representation and were willing to pay for it, and didn't compel people to be members to keep their job. There are plenty of people who don't want to be "organized".

I would much prefer to be able to negotiate for what is important to me, not at the expense of protecting others who may not be doing their jobs.

I'm sympathetic to your point, but if I might go meta for a moment...

Think of labor as "sweat capital." If a company needs labor, it should be compelled to acquire that sweat capital under the same terms it would acquire liquid capital.

In regard to liquid capital, it can sell shares or take on debt. It usually does both. In the former instance, it dilutes the value of its shares. In the latter, it must pay interest. These are costs. And in terms of debt, those costs are what the market can get away with charging the corp. If the bank doesn't like the credit risk, it may charge the corporation through the nose.

Labor should be able to charge the corporation for sweat capital at whatever cost the providers of such sweat capital can extract. But the only way sweat capital can increase its value, to give it negotiating power equivalent to providers of liquid capital, is by compelling all providers of such capital into a pool. If individuals are able to opt out, the providers of sweat capital are placed at a structural disadvantage.

I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to pay dues to anybody else. But as a pragmatist, and one who believes that unions are necessary "sweat capital aggregators" without which inequality will further soar, I see zero economic benefit in this decision.

Yes, I'm allowing economics to trump law here. But this decision is enabling a "race to the bottom" we can hardly afford. If we eviscerate the middle class's purchasing power much further, we're going to soon reach two ugly realities:

1. Nobody will have any retirement savings because of the divergence between wages and increasing costs of living (particularly where Trump is starting a trade war that's going spike inflation);
2. These companies that have abused their leverage over the providers of "sweat capital" will have no one to sell their products to in this country.

Unions may often be run by corrupt and piggish management. But union wages for the guys who actually provide the sweat capital are a very necessary component of our economy's purchasing capacity. Too often, we confuse the two.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Then it would be great if a union only negotiated on behalf of people who wanted such representation and were willing to pay for it, and didn't compel people to be members to keep their job. There are plenty of people who don't want to be "organized".

I would much prefer to be able to negotiate for what is important to me, not at the expense of protecting others who may not be doing their jobs.

It's not the union that compels people to be members to keep their job.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would like to have someone whose job it is to negotiate my salary and working conditions, but whom I don't have to pay.

good for you! but see, no one is saying you can't keep paying dues.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

good for you! but see, no one is saying you can't keep paying dues.

It would be the ultimate test of the value of unions if the individuals got to decide whether the services provided were worth the cost, no?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

It would be the ultimate test of the value of unions if the individuals got to decide whether the services provided were worth the cost, no?

So, one employee can thwart the choice of the majority of her fellow workers, but one shareholder of a corporation is forced to go along with decisions made by the majority of shareholders?

I mean, hey, you don’t have to buy shares of a corporation whose structure gives Marky Z most of the votes. Or you could sell the shares if they decide to make corporate political donations to the GOP. In contrast, one would be foolish to argue that the individual workers did choose to follow the majority of happy union workers by accepting a job that requires union membership. Or ones who were in the minority of a successful union certification could seek work elsewhere. I mean, that’s just apples and oranges, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

So, one employee can thwart the choice of the majority of her fellow workers, but one shareholder of a corporation is forced to go along with decisions made by the majority of shareholders?

I mean, hey, you don’t have to buy shares of a corporation whose structure gives Marky Z most of the votes. Or you could sell the shares if they decide to make corporate political donations to the GOP. In contrast, one would be foolish to argue that the individual workers did choose to follow the majority of happy union workers by accepting a job that requires union membership. Or ones who were in the minority of a successful union certification could seek work elsewhere. I mean, that’s just apples and oranges, right?

this little debate is really fun! for the first time i'm seeing dems hate on their sacred cows. union members are golden UNLESS they don't want to pay union fees- then those same paragons of all that is great in america actually (at least according to Ty- 13th amendment!!!!) are effectively vile freeloaders. Double bonus fun points- you all are hating on government employee union members!!!!!

(and your "they don't have to work here" is too wrong on too many levels to even merit an answer)

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

this little debate is really fun! for the first time i'm seeing dems hate on their sacred cows. union members are golden UNLESS they don't want to pay union fees- then those same paragons of all that is great in america actually (at least according to Ty- 13th amendment!!!!) are effectively vile freeloaders. Double bonus fun points- you all are hating on government employee union members!!!!!

(and your "they don't have to work here" is too wrong on too many levels to even merit an answer)

To be honest, I had forgotten that we were talking about public sector unions (which I view very differently from private sector unions), but my point stands. I’m no more hating on individual workers who don’t want to be included in, and help pay to negotiate, a collective bargaining agreement than I am when talking about childless people complaining about school district taxes or homeowner association members complaining about everyone using the same guy to mow their lawns.

And it’s interesting to me that people on a internet bulliten board thingy started to negotiate in a way for uniform and higher employee wages would argue that collective action is bad.

And we all paid for that service by having to see ads on our Yahoo and Infirm pages. IIRC, no one (not even Know Won) argued that they should get the benefit of the board without having to see any ads.

*Still a great song.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by not bob

and it’s interesting to me that people on a internet bulliten board thingy started to negotiate in a way for uniform and higher employee wages would argue that collective action is bad.

gooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!