New right to work state:

[Mr. Deez]

Thank you very much for the education. I'll readily admit that I don't fully understand the ramifications of RTW legislation.

I'm opposed to Unionization in most instances. For White Collar job like teachers and Boeing engineers I firmly believe the unions actually hold back the salary growth of the quality workers and level it out by protecting the less than quality members. In farm workers and other blue collar jobs that don't have the benefit of education being an equalizer unions still have a role.

As far as the free loaders, I do see that getting the benefits of the union negotiated deals while not paying their dues is an extreme problem. If I understood it correctly, only 1 business leader in the State of Wisconsin actually supported this legislation or at least spoke out in support. That forced me to ask the question, why? Yes, I know that union reprisals can be a significant factor but I also know that administering union and non-union workers simultaneously can be a HUGE drag on operational efficiency. Are there likely some business leaders that would rather deal with a single union rather than hundreds or thousands of individuals? That's possible.

I'm not necessarily pro-union or anti-union. There are costs and benefits of employees joining a union, and I think every situation is different. Some union leaders are thugs, and some are decent people. Some business leaders are thugs, and some are decent people. I'm only opposed to RTW laws, because I don't hate unions so much that I think the law should be set up to allow people to effectively steal from them. I pretty much hate Allstate Insurance, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to go break into their offices and steal from them.

As for businesses wanting to deal with a union, I can imagine that happening if the business has a particularly good relationship with the union leaders. It can be easier to negotiate with one employee representative rather than hundreds or thousands of individual workers, and the union can help resolve disputes between employees, which might otherwise be a headache the company has to deal with. (I know Volkswagen "kinda, sorta" wanted the employees at its Tennessee plant to unionize, which they didn't.) However, that's going to be a pretty rare exception. Most of the time, the business sees the union as driving up its costs and providing little to no benefit, so they oppose unions.

 

[iatrogenic]

According to the BLS (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), there are 16.2 million workers represented by a union and 14.6 million union members. That's about 1.6 million workers or around 10 percent of workers represented by unions. If there are 1.6 million unicorns, they're doing a good job of hiding.

The stats referenced also state that the 16.2 million figure " refer to members of a labor union or an employee association similar to a union."
The association members (1.6million) are not freeloaders. Just members of a "union" of a different color.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The stats referenced also state that the 16.2 million figure " refer to members of a labor union or an employee association similar to a union."
The association members (1.6million) are not freeloaders. Just members of a "union" of a different color.

No, that's false. Look at Table 3 again. What you're quoting is a footnote, and it refers to "members of unions," not "represented by unions," which is where the 16.2 million figure refers to.

 

[zork]

http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_2d698366-f336-59a8-b9b7-20d8fd53b050.html

 

[Mr. Deez]

http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_2d698366-f336-59a8-b9b7-20d8fd53b050.html

I'm actually surprised that Jeb polls as high as he does among GOP primary voters. Ditto for Lindsey Graham. I know he's from South Carolina, but he's viewed by many primary voters as a RINO. Furthermore, there have always been rumors that he "prefers the company of men." I don't think it would be hard for a guy like Walker to pick off a lot of support from both of them.

I also think he'd be a tough general election candidate. He's more conservative than Mitt Romney was, so the base would turn out for him. In addition, he obviously has some crossover and populist appeal, an area in which Romney was severely lacking. That would help him in some of the key states in which Romney lost but wasn't blown out (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.). He'd get flack for not graduating from college, but I think that would only impress elite liberal types who wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway. I think John Kasich would have even broader appeal and has less baggage than Walker, but Walker would be tough.

 

[iatrogenic]

Try this for perspective:

So non-union members in NRTW States that pay fees (i.e. non-freeloaders) for collective bargaining done by the union (and are therefore covered by union contracts) could be counted in the 1.6million? Also, many non-union management employees in RTW states pay fees to unions in order to receive union health insurance benefits ( they are, in part, covered under union contracts)- (Local 68 and Local 211 in Houston for instance). Do you think you should be classifying them as non-union member freeloaders?


Back to your original statement:

"First, when you’re in a right to work state and choose not to join a union at a company in which the employees have chosen to unionize, you are still under the protection of the collective bargaining agreement that the union negotiated. ( It actually takes at least two parties to negotiate, and if the employer agrees to pay the same wages to non-union members as union members, that is up to the employer.) In other words, we’re not really talking about the right to work, we’re talking about the right to freeload – enjoy the benefits of the union’s contract but fleece the union on dues. If you don't want to join a union, that's fine, but you should lose the union protections. You should have to bargain for your own wages, benefits, etc. (If a non-union member is more qualified/productive than a union member, and therefore should receive greater pay and benefits, but the employer can point to union pay scale to set the wage rate for the more qualified non-union member, should the union pay the more qualified employee the amount that they screwed him out of with their collective bargaining contract? )

 

[Mr. Deez]

Try this for perspective:

So non-union members in NRTW States that pay fees (i.e. non-freeloaders) for collective bargaining done by the union (and are therefore covered by union contracts) could be counted in the 1.6million?

Yes, they could be.

Also, many non-union management employees in RTW states pay fees to unions in order to receive union health insurance benefits ( they are, in part, covered under union contracts)- (Local 68 and Local 211 in Houston for instance). Do you think you should be classifying them as non-union member freeloaders?

No, and I wouldn't classify them as as such. A freeloader is someone who takes a benefit they don't pay for. These employees are paying for what they're getting.

Back to your original statement:

It actually takes at least two parties to negotiate, and if the employer agrees to pay the same wages to non-union members as union members, that is up to the employer.)

No, it isn't. The non-union members are under the protection of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore subject to the union's pay scale whether the employer wants them to be or not.

(If a non-union member is more qualified/productive than a union member, and therefore should receive greater pay and benefits, but the employer can point to union pay scale to set the wage rate for the more qualified non-union member, should the union pay the more qualified employee the amount that they screwed him out of with their collective bargaining contract? )

No. That's sorta like asking if your auto insurer should have to return your premium to you if you didn't cause a wreck. When a labor force unionizes, the individual employees forfeit the speculative potential benefit of their individual bargaining for the security of collective bargaining. That's part of the deal.

In Deezestan (the hypothetical nation in which I am benevolent dictator), I wouldn't have RTW, because I think you should pay for the benefit you receive. However, I would allow employees to individually bargain for their wages if they choose, but the business lobby wouldn't go for that.

 

[iatrogenic]

Now we are getting somewhere; The Union may benefit some employees (which for some is certainly true) by giving them certain protection from being fired and receiving benefits they may not be able to negotiate themselves, and the RTW laws allow the "freeloaders" (which may exist but will remain Unicorns to me until I can actually find one).

Unions also limit the ability of "superior" employees to earn more than the union negotiated wages and benefits. They limit the American Dream for some, while providing the union dream for others.

Deezestan should go with what works for 90% of the employees working in the USA.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Now we are getting somewhere; The Union may benefit some employees (which for some is certainly true) by giving them certain protection from being fired and receiving benefits they may not be able to negotiate themselves, and the RTW laws allow the "freeloaders" (which may exist but will remain Unicorns to me until I can actually find one).

Unions also limit the ability of "superior" employees to earn more than the union negotiated wages and benefits. They limit the American Dream for some, while providing the union dream for others.

Deezestan should go with what works for 90% of the employees working in the USA.

Exactly where are we getting? I'm not here to celebrate unions. They're not for everybody, and they're definitely a trade-off. My point was never to say they were always good. You take the good with the bad.

Also, Deezestan would allow employees who want to negotiate their pay collectively to do so and allow those who want to negotiate their pay individually to be able to do so as well. You couldn't ask for a freer system than that. The only thing I wouldn't allow is for one to exploit the collective bargaining system without sharing in its costs. You say that doesn't happen, and if it truly doesn't, then why would you care?

 

[iatrogenic]

Exactly where are we getting? I'm not here to celebrate unions. They're not for everybody, and they're definitely a trade-off. My point was never to say they were always good. You take the good with the bad.

Also, Deezestan would allow employees who want to negotiate their pay collectively to do so and allow those who want to negotiate their pay individually to be able to do so as well. You couldn't ask for a freer system than that. The only thing I wouldn't allow is for one to exploit the collective bargaining system without sharing in its costs. You say that doesn't happen, and if it truly doesn't, then why would you care?

I think we have got "there" with your statement above. I don't believe there is a "freeloader" problem, and I am okay with it.

You stated (in a RTW state):
"No, it isn't. The non-union members are under the protection of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore subject to the union's pay scale whether the employer wants them to be or not." You seem to think this is a good thing for the non-union employee. I think it limits their ability to earn.

Otherwise we should pass the Bill and forward it to Deezestan's "Committee for the Enactment of New Laws and BBQ Smokehouse" for finalization and enforcement. Committee adjourned.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think we have got "there" with your statement above. I don't believe there is a "freeloader" problem, and I am okay with it.

That's fine. If you hate unions so much that you think it should be legal to quasi-steal from them (even if you disbelieve the conventional wisdom that's at least significantly supported by statistical evidence), that's your prerogative. Just hope to God nobody ever comes to power who thinks it should be OK to steal from you. My guess is that if the Legislature passed a law that said payment for whatever good or service you sold was optional, you would ***** at what an injustice it was.

You stated (in a RTW state):
"No, it isn't. The non-union members are under the protection of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore subject to the union's pay scale whether the employer wants them to be or not." You seem to think this is a good thing for the non-union employee. I think it limits their ability to earn.

It might be a waste of time to argue with you, because don't actually read and sometimes misquote what you claim to read. I'm not for limiting anybody's right to earn, and I've been clear about that. What I oppose is the ability to reap the benefit of a CBA that you don't pay for. I'm also opposed to restricting the freedom of contract between unions and businesses.

I do support the right of the employee to completely separate himself from the union, so long as he truly does so. If you don't want to pay union dues, that's perfectly fine. You can go negotiate your own pay and benefits.

 

[iatrogenic]

That's fine. If you hate unions so much that you think it should be legal to quasi-steal from them (even if you disbelieve the conventional wisdom that's at least significantly supported by statistical evidence), that's your prerogative. Just hope to God nobody ever comes to power who thinks it should be OK to steal from you. My guess is that if the Legislature passed a law that said payment for whatever good or service you sold was optional, you would ***** at what an injustice it was.



It might be a waste of time to argue with you, because don't actually read and sometimes misquote what you claim to read. I'm not for limiting anybody's right to earn, and I've been clear about that. What I oppose is the ability to reap the benefit of a CBA that you don't pay for. I'm also opposed to restricting the freedom of contract between unions and businesses.

I do support the right of the employee to completely separate himself from the union, so long as he truly does so. If you don't want to pay union dues, that's perfectly fine. You can go negotiate your own pay and benefits.

I wasn't looking for an argument, but a discussion can be helpful for understanding. Speaking of misquoting, I never said I "hated unions".

You act like it is a major problem, but there is zero, as in ZERO, evidence of even one individual freeloading off of a union. Just because you're moaning about it doesn't make it "conventional wisdom". Common sense about how the world works should give you an inkling that it is never going to be a major problem even if it did happen somewhere, sometime. You linked to general data that is not detailed enough to justify your semi-rage against RTW, and I pointed out why it doesn't justify your premise.

Even if this horrible problem you claim exists, no one is breaking the law. If the laws governing this issue were such a big problem, I feel confident that it would be addressed by the courts- and no one seems to give a damn other than you. There are many laws that I feel are unfair, and most have to do with the federal government taxing citizens well beyond what is necessary, then wasting those tax receipts on ridiculous projects.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wasn't looking for an argument, but a discussion can be helpful for understanding. Speaking of misquoting, I never said I "hated unions".

I didn't say you said you hated them. I'm drawing the inference that you hate them, based on what you've said. That's not misquoting. Misquoting is when you claim someone or something states something that it doesn't state. You have done that, and I'm not saying you've done that on purpose. I just think you slop through what you read and pay little attention to it.

You act like it is a major problem, but there is zero, as in ZERO, evidence of even one individual freeloading off of a union. Just because your're moaning about it doesn't make it "conventional wisdom".

Do you really I'm think the only one who has raised this issue? Trust me, I'm not that creative. It is raised every time RTW legislation is enacted. It's a huge issue in labor policy. You're just ignorant about it. However, the real issue isn't the presence of the freeloaders, as much as it's the disincentive to form the union in the first place. Unions need money to function, and if giving to them is optional and provides no direct benefit, then they're going to be much harder to form. There's a reason why RTW states generally have much lower unionization rates.

Common sense about how the world works should give you an inkling that it is never going to be a major problem even if it did happen somewhere, sometime.

Common sense is that people generally pay for what they have to pay for and don't pay for what they don't have to pay for. They like to keep their money if they have a choice.

Even if this horrible problem you claim exists, no one is breaking the law.

You're right. That's the whole point. It is legal to exploit the union's service and not pay for it, and it's legal to bail a business out of a CBA it agrees to but doesn't like.

If the laws governing this issue were such a big problem, I feel confident that it would be addressed by the courts- and no one seems to give a damn other than you.

If you think that, then you don't know what a court is, much less how it works. Most court systems have a general rule that a contract between parties will be enforced. However, RTW laws abrogate that default rule and invalidate the parties' contract. That removes the dispute from the courts. They have no authority to address the issue, and the vast majority of court systems (especially in RTW states) are business-friendly, and in the case of Texas, militantly so. They're not going to bend any rules for a union. In fact, they're far more likely to bend the rules the opposite direction.

There are many laws that I feel are unfair, and most have to do with the federal government taxing citizens well beyond what is necessary, then wasting those tax receipts on ridiculous projects.

And we'd probably agree on most of those. Keep in mind, I'm favorable to most people who support RTW laws, even if I disagree with them on it. If it's Scott Walker v. Hillary Clinton, I will enthusiastically vote for Scott Walker.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

The employer provides the wage and health benefits....yes the union negotiates, but the union wants to count you in the number for leverage, if you agree with that, explain Freeloader again?

The core Conservative principle is give me the choice of who I give money too, don't just take it......if there are freeloaders, I am sure the unions would be doing more to prevent that action, but they don't want to piss off a future revenue source.

I think your Freeloader stance is a stretch, a pretty big one at that.....

 

[Seattle Husker]

I do support the right of the employee to completely separate himself from the union, so long as he truly does so. If you don't want to pay union dues, that's perfectly fine. You can go negotiate your own pay and benefits.

The only thing that companies hate worse than dealing with unions is dealing with union/non-union members in the same role. It's cheaper to companies to give non-union members the same benefits and comp package. They are also hoping that by doing so they are removing the incentive for employees to want to be union members. In some ways it's a union busting strategy.

I agree with your premise that non-union members should not get the benefit of union negotiations. Either your a union shop or not.

 

[zork]

in a right to work state there are fewer union jobs, right?

 

[Mr. Deez]

The employer provides the wage and health benefits....yes the union negotiates, but the union wants to count you in the number for leverage, if you agree with that, explain Freeloader again?

Major, even in a non-RTW state, the union doesn't necessarily get to count you in their membership. The only difference is that in non-RTW states, people who are getting benefits under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) can be required to pay an agency fee to the union. An agency fee is not even union dues. It is the union expenses that go toward contract negotiation, enforcement, and administration. In other words, you only pay for the costs associated with the contract you fall under. In a RTW state, you don't have to pay the agency fee. One can be covered under and reap the benefits of the CBA and not pay for it. That's where the freeloading comes in.

The core Conservative principle is give me the choice of who I give money too, don't just take it......if there are freeloaders, I am sure the unions would be doing more to prevent that action, but they don't want to piss off a future revenue source.

In a RTW state, there's nothing a union can do to prevent it. And this doesn't clearly fit a conservative principle (unless you consider the business lobby's agenda to be inherently conservative). The freedom of parties to contract and employment at will are also conservative principles, but a RTW law uses the force of government to invalidate a certain kind of contract and creates a legal exception to the at-will doctrine. In that sense, it's somewhat anti-free market.

 

[Mr. Deez]

in a right to work state there are fewer union jobs, right?

I'm not sure that necessarily holds up, but the rate of unionization is typically much lower.

 

[Mr. Deez]

They are also hoping that by doing so they are removing the incentive for employees to want to be union members. In some ways it's a union busting strategy.

SH, that is what this is really about - union busting. If you passed a law that made payment for gasoline optional, the number of gas stations would go down. Well, that's basically what RTW does with labor unions, and sure enough, unionization has gone down dramatically.

And of course, this is about politics and fundraising. Labor unions are and have long been a significant fundraising source for the Democratic Party. If you break them, the Democrats lose a key source of money. That leaves them with a choice - either forego the money or go ***** for the business lobby for money. (They've mostly chosen the latter, at least with respect to certain industries and issues.)

Of course, this makes it especially hard for a Republican to oppose RTW. He's not just going against the grain of the business lobby. He's taking the side of organizations that give money primarily to Democrats. The same phenomenon happens with opposing tort reform. You're not just going against the business lobby, you're siding with plaintiffs' attorneys who mostly give money to Democrats. However, siding with plaintiffs' lawyers isn't as tough for a few reasons. First, there's a constitutional right to a trial by jury, and at least a small minority of conservatives will at least grudgingly respect that to a point even if the business lobby is telling them not to. Second, some lawyers (including some plaintiffs' lawyers) are and give money to Republicans and privately know tort reform is BS. By contrast, there is no constitutional right to unionize, and there are very few if any union leaders who are Republicans. Furthermore, virtually all of their money goes to Democrats. It's not just most of it.

And make no mistake, Democrats do the same kind of thing to Republicans when they can. The tobacco litigation started right around the time tobacco companies started giving more money to Republicans than to Democrats. I seriously doubt that was a coincidence.

 

[towersniper]

[QUOTE="iatrogenic, post: 1382039, member: 134827"

You act like it is a major problem, but there is zero, as in ZERO, evidence of even one individual freeloading off of a union. Just because you're moaning about it doesn't make it "conventional wisdom". Common sense about how the world works should give you an inkling that it is never going to be a major problem even if it did happen somewhere, sometime. You linked to general data that is not detailed enough to justify your semi-rage against RTW, and I pointed out why it doesn't justify your premise.

.[/QUOTE] Here are some that quit one local right after Michigan enacted RTW: (see last page) http://www.iuoe324.org/newsletters/Local324_Newsletter_49.pdf

 

[iatrogenic]

However, I would allow employees to individually bargain for their wages if they choose, but the business lobby wouldn't go for that.

A quote from the union newsletter submitted by towersniper:

I caution anyone who believes that they will get a better
“deal” negotiating with their employer alone. History has
proven that this is not the case, in fact the opposite is true,
to implement real change in the workplace, it takes a collective
effort. -
Fraternally submitted,
Ken Dombrow

Financial Secretary

It seems as though the union doesn't support the freedom for (or ability of) individuals to negotiate on their own.

It looks like towersniper found some unicorns. Not many, but they may exist. Of course, we don't know the reasons behind the individuals withdrawing from the union, but we can draw inference that any organization that lists the individuals' names and work locations under the big, bright heading of "FREELOADER" in their newsletter has a crack team of Union Stewards ready to jump to their defense at a moments notice in order to defend them from big bad employer.

This is where common sense should smite you with inner-occular trauma (i.e. right between the eyes). Those individuals aren't going to benefit from representation by the union. In fact, the union is already trying to discredit and embarrass them. I fail to see how they are freeloading (in reality, not in a law school discussion). I do see Unions trying to hold on to a fast declining membership, and doing everything in their power to justify their existence.

 

[zork]

More on Walker:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...068e9a-cef9-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

 

[towersniper]

Iatrogenic, it seems that in your world, if the unions don't list every freeloader, then they are "unicorns" and don't exist ( One local did; that doesn't mean that all the others couldn't, it just means they haven't). If they do list them, in your world, the union is being thuggish. In your world the union can't win on the issue. If the union newsletter "cautions" workers that they will likely not negotiate a better deal themselves, that a collectively bargained contract, you conclude that the union "doesn't support the freedom for (or ability of) individuals to negotiate on their own."

But you don't hate unions. Right. You are not the only one capable of drawing inferences, you know.

It is fine to be anti-union, but I think your words to Deez may have been a little unfair.











[/QUOTE]

 

[militaryhorn]

I live in Texas but I do not get to decide whether or not I pay into my union. I work for the railroad and we don't get a choice. They must have some special provision for railroad employees in RTW states that must pay union dues.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A quote from the union newsletter submitted by towersniper:

I caution anyone who believes that they will get a better
“deal” negotiating with their employer alone. History has
proven that this is not the case, in fact the opposite is true,
to implement real change in the workplace, it takes a collective
effort. -
Fraternally submitted,
Ken Dombrow

Financial Secretary

It seems as though the union doesn't support the freedom for (or ability of) individuals to negotiate on their own.

Probably not. If it was up to unions, we'd have probably closed shops, but so what? You're desperate to make this a "unions bad; business good" discussion, and it's more nuanced than that. Nobody has suggested that unions should always get what they want. Just because I don't think you should be able to steal from a union doesn't mean they should get everything they want. They stand for all kinds of crap that I'd never support.

It looks like towersniper found some unicorns. Not many, but they may exist.

Actually, for one local union, he found quite a few. And I don't blame you for trying changing the subject on that point.

This is where common sense should smite you with inner-occular trauma (i.e. right between the eyes). Those individuals aren't going to benefit from representation by the union. In fact, the union is already trying to discredit and embarrass them. I fail to see how they are freeloading (in reality, not in a law school discussion). I do see Unions trying to hold on to a fast declining membership, and doing everything in their power to justify their existence.

Like you said, you don't know why those members quit the union. In fact, you don't even have a basis to speculate. Of course they don't want people to stop paying their dues. In the same regard, businesses sometimes post the names of people who bounce checks to them.

Also, you know little about law school. First, I didn't read about the freeloader phenomenon on law school. In fact, I didn't even take Labor Law. (I did take Employment Law, but that had nothing to do with labor law.) I figured it out by (1) reading a right to work statute; and (2) reading commentaries on the issue written by people who know it better than I do and far better than you do. Second, law school is pretty reality based. About 95 percent of what a law student reads is court opinions. Well, court opinions don't get written without something in the real world occurring.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I live in Texas but I do not get to decide whether or not I pay into my union. I work for the railroad and we don't get a choice. They must have some special provision for railroad employees in RTW states that must pay union dues.

The railroads are a beast all unto themselves. Congress passed the Railway Labor Act, which removes the issue from state RTW laws. The RLA is way outside my area of expertise, so I'm talking out my *** here. However, you may want to check your CBA. If it doesn't require all members to be in the union, then you don't have to be. However, either way, I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get away with just paying the agency fees (those fees that go toward contract negotiation and administration). That would likely reduce your dues.

 

[militaryhorn]

The railroads are a beast all unto themselves. Congress passed the Railway Labor Act, which removes the issue from state RTW laws. The RLA is way outside my area of expertise, so I'm talking out my *** here. However, you may want to check your CBA. If it doesn't require all members to be in the union, then you don't have to be. However, either way, I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get away with just paying the agency fees (those fees that go toward contract negotiation and administration). That would likely reduce your dues.

Thanks for the free legal advice I don't pay to much, $139.50 a month, it really isn't that big a deal. The only thing that irks me is that I have to pay them, even if it is just for the part that you mentioned.

 

[Larry T Spider]

My MIL works for United in Houston and is required to pay as well. Moving the HQ to Chicago and forcing a bunch of Texans into a union they don't want to be in has gone over like a lead balloon. But, I do get to throw the lazy liberal union worker lines at them in retribution for all the "govt worker" abuse I have taken over the years. I personally love the change!

 

[iatrogenic]

UOTE="Mr. Deez, post: 1382963, member: 39847"]Actually, for one local union, he found quite a few. And I don't blame you for trying changing the subject on that point.[/QUOTE]

I'm not changing the subject, I'm pointing out that he may have found some unicorns. A grand total of 16. There are 12,000 members of that union, but I don't know how many are in the local. There may be others, published in a newsletter with the intent of the union to alienate and embarrass them, or remaining unidentified by a union intent on causing them harm to one degree or another. The fact remains that their freedom is being limited if they are forced to pay, or forced to join anything. You say they benefit, I say they may not be benefitting.

Like you said, you don't know why those members quit the union. In fact, you don't even have a basis to speculate. Of course they don't want people to stop paying their dues. In the same regard, businesses sometimes post the names of people who bounce checks to them.


Also, you know little about law school. First, I didn't read about the freeloader phenomenon on law school. In fact, I didn't even take Labor Law. (I did take Employment Law, but that had nothing to do with labor law.) I figured it out by (1) reading a right to work statute; and (2) reading commentaries on the issue written by people who know it better than I do and far better than you do. Second, law school is pretty reality based. About 95 percent of what a law student reads is court opinions. Well, court opinions don't get written without something in the real world occurring.

I didn't speculate on why they withdrew from the bargaining unit. You did speculate that they were "stealing" from the union. But if you want to speculate, I will help you: For all you know they withdrew from the union because the union business manager knocked up their 13 year old daughter and is being prosecuted (innocent until proven guilty) and they don't want to support a union with that guy as manager. Maybe one of them has a terminal illness, or is losing their house, or is trying to put their kid through college and needs the money to pay bills. Maybe the union didn't support them in a dispute because the union steward and the employer are brothers-in-law, or maybe they don't like the way the union supports a particular party and since money is fungible they have no way of knowing whether their donations are going to CBA activities or PAC donations regardless of the reports put out by the union. Maybe they drew inference that the union has ties to organized crime. Maybe they feel like they work harder and should be paid more than the CBA allows but can't be paid more because of the CBA. Maybe they feel as though their union pension is underfunded and in trouble and, since the feds have already stated they won't be bailing them out and it is questionable whether or not the Pension Reform Act will become law (which it should and every Democrat and Republican should support it), maybe they are questioning the ability of the union to make wise decisions. You call it stealing, but they might feel differently.

"Businesses sometimes post the names of people that bounce checks to them". Are you trying to justify the activities of union thugs with this?

It's a little creepy that you think you know something about me and what I know, and it is beyond arrogant. I will help you a little: I may not be an expert, but I deal with union contractors every day and have for over thirty years- and I like them (management) and their unions. I think the union training is excellent and the individuals are great folks. I give a pretty good chunk of change to union training classes every year (and if you live in Texas you probably do the same but don't even know it). However, we are in Texas, and the same cannot be said for unions around the country. I didn't know if you went to law school or not, and it doesn't matter to me. I didn't say you had a discussion about this in law school, I stated that your line of reasoning is that of an academic, but doesn't apply to the "real" world of unions. I do have a sneaking suspicion that I know a little more about how the world works than you or any career law school commentator may ever know, but I will just say that it is possible because I don't want to sound like a jackass lawyer.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I do have a sneaking suspicion that I know a little more about how the world works than you or any career law school commentator may ever know, but I will just say that it is possible because I don't want to sound like a jackass lawyer.

You don't sound like a jackass lawyer, you just sound like a jackass. You brought sarcasm and smack talk to this discussion. I didn't. Either way, I'm done with you. You misquote, don't thoroughly read the discussion, and don't stay on topic. It's a waste of time to talk to you any further.