majorspark;1340919 wrote:This is a distinction without a difference.



Only if the employer allows it. Or it could be more or could be less.



And now you can't be compelled to pay them.

What makes you think it is a distinction without a difference? Even if an employer has a union security agreement...a potential employee is still free to approach the employer, bargaining on his own behalf, for his own contract outside of the union security agreement that would not warrant agency fees/union dues.

That is a substantial difference. "Right to Work" laws substantially interefere in the right to contract while not materially increasing the contracting power of individuals beyond what they actually are in non-right-two-work stateswhich is not what the language "right to work" implies.

For instance, the State Rep who said "workers are now freed" brings the lulz.

They were already free.

In non-right-to-work states even if you don't join the union you can't be compelled to pay an agency fee if the union didn't negotiate your particular contract. For instance, suppose you're a plumbing company and your employees choose to form a union with whom you form a union security agreement. Plumber Al comes along and doesn't negotiate his own contract with the plumbing company but agrees to be covered by the contract negotiated by the Union but doesn't want to join it because he's a Republican. He has to pay an agency fee in accord with the U.S.A. Plumber Bill comes along and wants to negotiate his own contract because he's a proud republican and he thinks he's a superior plumber to the other guys and the employer agrees. He is not covered by the U.S.A. as he negotiated his own contract and doesn't justifiably owe the union an agency fee and is not required to pay one.

In "Right-to-Work" states. the Plumber Al's of the world are elevated to the same level of the Plumber Bill's even though they didn't negotiate their own contract.

I love the irony, the liberal bastion of unions, the mecca of the UAW, the home of the liberal cesspool Detroit, voting in a republican governor and legislature. Tells you something about the will of the people, doesn't it?

tk421;1340960 wrote:I love the irony, the liberal bastion of unions, the mecca of the UAW, the home of the liberal cesspool Detroit, voting in a republican governor and legislature. Tells you something about the will of the people, doesn't it?

He won't be there for long, he shouldn't of poked that bear

I'd like to see some peer reviewed studies on the effect of RTW laws on prices and employment within states. There's plenty on the effect on wages (RTW states have lower wages) but I haven't seen any on prices or employment.

BoatShoes;1340953 wrote:Plumber Al comes along and doesn't negotiate his own contract with the plumbing company but agrees to be covered by the contract negotiated by the Union but doesn't want to join it because he's a Republican..

Who says Al does not negotiate. So what if Al accepts compensation at the level of most of his union coworkers? The question I have is does Al expect union lawyers to come to his defense in any individual labor issue? Will the union lawyers come to Al's defense if he is accused of screwing the livestock?

majorspark;1340975 wrote:Will the union lawyers come to Al's defense if he is accused of screwing the livestock?

Of course not. The union lawyers are too busy screwing the union workers.

BoatShoes;1340870 wrote:They already had the choice not to join a union. This law makes it illegal for employers and employees to engage in a certain type of contract called a "union security agreement" which would require non-union employees to pay an agency fee to a union that negotiated it's employment contract. Now, those people can get the benefits of that negotiation without paying for it.

However you feel about this issue or unions...it needs to be understood that it is already the law in all 50 states that you cannot be compelled to join a union.

Then the law does nothing. Odd how people are so worked up over it that they even resort to violence.

queencitybuckeye;1340981 wrote:Then the law does nothing. Odd how people are so worked up over it that they even resort to violence.

Imagine this scenario. The state of California, worried about competing with Bollywood, feels the wages of most actors working in California are inflated because they have Talent Agents with have strong negotiation skills working on their behalf. The state therefore passes a law that makes it optional for California actors to pay agents who negotiated on their behalf in the name of freeing California actors to negotiate for themselves.

You could see why, in this scenario, talent agents might be upset I imagine. The legislature has declared it ok to not compensate them for their services rendered. You could also see why some actors might be upset because they know they got higher compensation due to increased bargaining power through the skills of their talent agents.

You could also see why some actors might be happy. "Yeah, my lousy agent takes more than he deserves...I'm not going to pay him." etc.

This is essentially what happens when a state becomes a "right-to-work" state except the union is bargaining agent in that scenario. It seems to me that it's not fair to say the law does nothing.

BoatShoes;1341009 wrote:...

You could also see why some actors might be upset because they know they got higher compensation due to increased bargaining power through the skills of their talent agents.

...

The employer should have equal "power" to bargain with whomever they choose as opposed to be forced to bargain with an agent.

majorspark;1340975 wrote:Who says Al does not negotiate. So what if Al accepts compensation at the level of most of his union coworkers?

I'm saying Al doesn't negotiate in the example. If he did negotiate and stipulated that he not be in the "bargaining unit" of the other plumbers it doesn't matter if his compensation is at or near their level..he wouldn't have to pay union dues/agency fees and likewise wouldn't get other services in return from the Union. As a practical matter though the onus really is on the employer to decide whether to bargain with Al individually. But all always has that opportunity to make the offer.

So I suppose it isn't fair to say Al is "totally free" to bargain individually because the employer is given more freedom in non right-to-work states to deny him this if the employer would rather just negotiate with a union and say "Be covered by this agreement or find another job. I don't want to negotiate with 20 people collectively and then 20 people individually."

If he agrees to be covered by the contract and pays an agency fee ("fair share fee" as the unions call them lol) rather than full union dues I am not sure on this but I imagine he wouldn't get the assistance of the union if he were accused of banging the livestock because he's just supposed to be paying for his contract negotiation. If he paid for more than negotiation I can't see why he wouldn't be owed such representation even if he didn't join the union?? I could be wrong.

For that matter he's also owed an accounting for where his fees go and can file a complaint with the NLRB if he suspects the fees are being used improperly.

BoatShoes;1341009 wrote:Imagine this scenario. The state of California, worried about competing with Bollywood, feels the wages of most actors working in California are inflated because they have Talent Agents with have strong negotiation skills working on their behalf. The state therefore passes a law that makes it optional for California actors to pay agents who negotiated on their behalf in the name of freeing California actors to negotiate for themselves.

You could see why, in this scenario, talent agents might be upset I imagine. The legislature has declared it ok to not compensate them for their services rendered. You could also see why some actors might be upset because they know they got higher compensation due to increased bargaining power through the skills of their talent agents.

You could also see why some actors might be happy. "Yeah, my lousy agent takes more than he deserves...I'm not going to pay him." etc.

This is essentially what happens when a state becomes a "right-to-work" state except the union is bargaining agent in that scenario. It seems to me that it's not fair to say the law does nothing.

Not remotely the same. That I may gain financially from the efforts of someone representing others as a byproduct does not create a situation where I owe them anything. In your scenario, a contract exists. In my situation none does.

Look Boatshoes. All this does is force the union to justify it's member's paying the fees instead of the other way around.

This is only a good thing for both parties and especially for the American worker. Now, instead of automatically shipping their unskilled labor overseas instead of not renewing the contract with the union, the workers can now decide for themselves if they want to work for less. A win win. :thumbup:

BoatShoes;1341009 wrote:Imagine this scenario.

I will as long as I can contrast it with one of my own.

The state of California, worried about competing with Bollywood, feels the wages of most actors working in California are inflated because they have Talent Agents with have strong negotiation skills working on their behalf. The state therefore passes a law that makes it optional for California actors to pay agents who negotiated on their behalf in the name of freeing California actors to negotiate for themselves.

I walk into XYZ corporation in Michigan and apply for a job. I have contracted with no third party to negotiate on my behalf. The other thousand people currently doing the same job were represented by a party that negotiated for them. I may do better, do worse, or do about the same in my individual negotiation than the third party did for the others. No existing contracts were in any way affected by my actions.

You could see why, in this scenario, talent agents might be upset I imagine. The legislature has declared it ok to not compensate them for their services rendered.

Indeed they would be. And if the third party in Michigan had a contract with me, they would have the right to be upset with me, but they have no such contract.

You could also see why some actors might be upset because they know they got higher compensation due to increased bargaining power through the skills of their talent agents.

Yes, I can understand why someone who they pay a significant amount of their paychecks would be upset that such "professionals" were unable to get a better deal for them than I was able to secure for myself. However, their anger seems to be misplaced if it's pointed toward me.

You could also see why some actors might be happy. "Yeah, my lousy agent takes more than he deserves...I'm not going to pay him." etc.

Sure I see that. That's why I chose not to have an agent. Wonderful thing, freedom of choice.

This is essentially what happens when a state becomes a "right-to-work" state except the union is bargaining agent in that scenario.

In your scenario, perhaps. In mine, not at all. I am my own bargaining agent.

sleeper;1341034 wrote:Look Boatshoes. All this does is force the union to justify it's member's paying the fees instead of the other way around.

This is only a good thing for both parties and especially for the American worker. Now, instead of automatically shipping their unskilled labor overseas instead of not renewing the contract with the union, the workers can now decide for themselves if they want to work for less. A win win. :thumbup:

I don't disagree with what you're getting at here.

If these laws are going to exist in the U.S., if the midwest hopes to compete with the South for jobs it is in their best interest to adopt policies that continue to erode the bargaining power of so-called "unskilled labor".

One way to do so that has proven effective is to pass laws that inevitably result in freeloading that eliminates collective bargaining.

However, it should be noted, that the overvalued U.S. dollar has way more to do with off-shoring of low skill jobs than unionized labor. The union/non-union debate is really about competition between states here in the United States. So I think a better analogy is that the midwest can hope for lower unemployment with albeit lower wages as opposed to seeing those jobs move to the South.

Even with a substantial weakening of the dollar that encouraged domestic manufacturing and re-shoring you'd still see most of that re-shoring go to "right-to-work" states.

Con_Alma;1341011 wrote:The employer should have equal "power" to bargain with whomever they choose as opposed to be forced to bargain with an agent.

Well, I dunno...an agent is really just an extension of the principal. For instance, I don't suppose you'd have all of the shareholders of a corporation bargain with a potential employee...no, it'd be through a human resource manager hired by a CEO who is picked by the board of directors, etc. who are all themselves agents ultimately of the shareholders.

BoatShoes;1341045 wrote:Well, I dunno...an agent is really just an extension of the principal. For instance, I don't suppose you'd have all of the shareholders of a corporation bargain with a potential employee...no, it'd be through a human resource manager hired by a CEO who is picked by the board of directors, etc. who are all themselves agents ultimately of the shareholders.

Perhaps, but there's no need for a law saying it must be done that way.

BoatShoes;1341043 wrote:I don't disagree with what you're getting at here.

If these laws are going to exist in the U.S., if the midwest hopes to compete with the South for jobs it is in their best interest to adopt policies that continue to erode the bargaining power of so-called "unskilled labor".

One way to do so that has proven effective is to pass laws that inevitably result in freeloading that eliminates collective bargaining.

However, it should be noted, that the overvalued U.S. dollar has way more to do with off-shoring of low skill jobs than unionized labor. The union/non-union debate is really about competition between states here in the United States. So I think a better analogy is that the midwest can hope for lower unemployment with albeit lower wages as opposed to seeing those jobs move to the South.

Even with a substantial weakening of the dollar that encouraged domestic manufacturing and re-shoring you'd still see most of that re-shoring go to "right-to-work" states.

The overvalued US dollar? Christ.

sleeper;1341055 wrote:The overvalued US dollar? Christ.

Please leave religion out of this.

queencitybuckeye;1341048 wrote:Perhaps, but there's no need for a law saying it must be done that way.

Exactly. I understand what an agent is. The contention is being forced to communicate through. one. I am not opposed to it. I am opposed to being forced to do so.

queencitybuckeye;1341048 wrote:Perhaps, but there's no need for a law saying it must be done that way.

Well there isn't...and, I'm not sure I suggested there should be???

If you look at a lot of job postings they will say "Contact by principal only" or something along those lines...

Con_Alma;1341076 wrote:Exactly. I understand what an agent is. The contention is being forced to communicate through. one. I am not opposed to it. I am opposed to being forced to do so.

Well I could be wrong but don't think that's the case. In my previous example a movie studio could start saying "contact by principal only" I imagine like lots of employers do.

BoatShoes;1341092 wrote:Well I could be wrong but don't think that's the case. In my previous example a movie studio could start saying "contact by principal only" I imagine like lots of employers do.

You don't think what is the case...that I have a contention with ever being forced or an employer being forced to communicate through an agent? I don't understand your post.

BoatShoes;1341092 wrote:Well I could be wrong but don't think that's the case. In my previous example a movie studio could start saying "contact by principal only" I imagine like lots of employers do.

And they could without regard to whether the state is "right to work" or not.

All this whining from union thugs in MI is stupid, if the union is strong enough it will survive and even flourish. So, what I am to understand from Boatshoes, since right to work clearly kills unions, is that of the 23 other states that are right to work, there are absolutely NO unions in those states? Correct? Right to work is clearly a death knell for unions, there couldn't possible be anyway for unions to survive after passing such deadly legislation.

Oh, what is that? You mean there ARE unions, and strong unions at that, in those 23 other right to work states? How does that work? After all, passing this death to union legislation clearly means that unions will not get any dues at all and all workers will freeload. Wow, shocking. Here's something to think about, MI. Southwest Airlines, based in Texas. Right to work state, around 95% is unionized I think. Wonderful place to work, yearly wins awards as most enjoyable, best employer. Maybe if you treat your employees better, instead of just someone to get dues from, people would actually WANT to join a union.

My mom works in a union job, union doesn't do a damn thing for the workers. Takes twice a month dues, employer regularly disregards contracts, does whatever it wants, union doesn't care. They are getting paid, they could not care less about the working people paying those dues as long as the dues continue to come in. Why should people that know the unions only care about making themselves even richer want to be in a union?

BoatShoes;1341043 wrote:
One way to do so that has proven effective is to pass laws that inevitably result in freeloading that eliminates collective bargaining.

You keep saying non-union workers would begin freeloading off the union contract. They would not be able to do that. They aren't going to go into negotiations and say "I want what the Union people have."
In fact, I bet the employer would enter the meeting thinking they could hire this employee for less money. That would be their goal. If the potential employee is able to show the employer why they are more valuable then they would get greater pay or perhaps they would agree on a salary that is close to what the Union agreed on. The only thing is now, because they were able to negotiate for themselves, the $50,000 they agreed upon is $50,000. Not $49,000(after, say, $1,000 in union fees).