Michigan Becomes A Right To Work State

So "some people say".....

Martin Ent Inc wrote: My brother and I went out and started our own Non Union company. We paid Prevailing Wage, or the same that the union workers paid without the Union enforced charges (to the company not workers) and our employees were very happy.
We did very well building at MGM studios and Disney along with Cape Canaveral and other places that were for the most part Union shops.
we also worked along side some of our former union brothers without a hitch.

Great post, Martin...I couldn't agree with your point more. Having unions in the local workforce brings up wages for the non-union workers as well, and benefits the economy for everyone. Thanks for making the point so clearly.

Something the Dog Said wrote: They do not have to pay dues, but just their share of the costs of the union in negotitating and support of grievances.

So none of the money non union workers pay, go to support the causes and candidates the unions choose to support or to the pockets of the union bosses? rofllol

So, you're changing the subject from "workers are being forced to join the union" to: "some minor percentage of their money MIGHT be used to support union causes"...Got it... Well, if you can't win one point, try to ignore it and go off in a new direction. Sooner or later you might get lucky.

So, the money that non-union workers pay to support the costs of negotiating their benefits is used to pay for that support. You have PROOF otherwise, please post it.

plaidvillain wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: My brother and I went out and started our own Non Union company. We paid Prevailing Wage, or the same that the union workers paid without the Union enforced charges (to the company not workers) and our employees were very happy.
We did very well building at MGM studios and Disney along with Cape Canaveral and other places that were for the most part Union shops.
we also worked along side some of our former union brothers without a hitch.

Great post, Martin...I couldn't agree with your point more. Having unions in the local workforce brings up wages for the non-union workers as well, and benefits the economy for everyone. Thanks for making the point so clearly.

You can be a non-union salary worker at a lot of big companies and not be part of the whole union contract benefit package. Its up to the employer what to pay and what benefits go to salaried non-union workers. Should be the same way for these "right to work" employees, negotiate your own salary. It's always been that way for salary workers.

And unions can actually negotiate deals that wouldn't apply to the non-union members at the plant. So there can be consequences for not joining.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

cydl wrote:

Grady wrote: Bottom line is why should anybody be forced to join a union or to pay dues to a union to hold a job? If the unions are doing such a bang up job of supporting the workers, wouldn't all workers be clamoring to join and participate?

Edit to add: Why should union dues be used to support political causes or candidates that individual members would not condone supporting?

My thought, too. If the union is indeed doing a great job of representing their constituents I would think the workers would be eager to join up. Perhaps the unions need to re-evaluate the job their doing for their membership if workers are disinclined to participate.

Perhaps posters could actually understand the facts before pontificating about them. Under the National Labor Relations Act, (title 29, section 151 of the United States Code), membership in a union is not required for employment. The Supreme Court has held that the union must still support nonmembers equally as union members in collective bargaining negotiations, and can not discriminate against them. Further the Supreme Court held in Communications Workers v. Beck, that nonmembers do not have to pay union dues, but must pay an agency fee that the union can prove is their proportionate share of the union costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

Sounds fair does it not? Employees are not required to join the union, can drop out of the union, and can not be treated any differently than union members. They do not have to pay dues, but just their share of the costs of the union in negotitating and support of grievances.

Yet, the republicans in Michigan took that away. The new laws say that non members can simply free ride on the union, get the benefits of the union and not pay their fair share of the costs of the benefits. Further, the republicans also put in the law that the residents of Michigan can not vote on this issue themselves through referendum.

You've never been in a union before have you. Not paying dues isn't an option. When I wanted to do exactly that, the union rep visited me at home and suggested that wasn't a good idea. I spoke with some of my friends who had been there a long time, and didn't like a lot of what the union did, but they suggested I just pay the fee...call it a "safety tax". People who wanted to just pay the agency fee did not have a good time at work, and many times had "accidents" happen to their personal property.

RenegadeCJ wrote: You've never been in a union before have you. Not paying dues isn't an option. When I wanted to do exactly that, the union rep visited me at home and suggested that wasn't a good idea. I spoke with some of my friends who had been there a long time, and didn't like a lot of what the union did, but they suggested I just pay the fee...call it a "safety tax". People who wanted to just pay the agency fee did not have a good time at work, and many times had "accidents" happen to their personal property.

I worked along side a guy in the Lab a few years ago who was once in the sheet rock union, and he told me similar stories about "meetings in the dark parking lot" with union thugs to "encourage" you to buy in. (Informal cash contributions). I have no reason not to believe his stories. He eventually retired and went independent.

I bet a lot of the pro-union, idealists on this thread have not had any real life contact with unions at their place of work. Just a guess.

I was in a union, here in Denver. They were more concerned about themselves up top then helping the workers. It was required to have the union dues taken out of your paycheck everymonth. Automatic, no choice in it. The stewards and top folks did nothing to help us. To friends of mine were injured on the job, one pretty bad. The company blew him off, he went to the union for help, they blew him off. Had one guy that screwed up (seemed he was always screwing up), lied, and some other things, the union went to bat for him and got him what he wanted. (I know for a fact that he lied also, I had proof of it) they didn't care about that.