I'm not one to answer you on that, maple. I know it's essentially union busting. They just put the name in there to make it palatable.

Sorry, I didn't see the second link. OK, it sounds like a bunch of accusations were made, some were dismissed, and there will be a hearing on the rest. Not having seen any of the evidence, I don't know if they're true (just as you don't). If they are, then they should be punished in whatever way the law provides. That doesn't change anything about my initial point that this plant, and these jobs, exist in large part because of Alabama's favorably pro-business labor laws.

"Polite? No, you're parsing out acceptable tactics of workplace intimidation based on nothing more than the very lax and pro-employer labor laws we have in this country. "

If you mean that I won't condemn a company on this issue when it doesn't act illegally, you're correct.

"A nice euphemism for firing people for talking about unions, aka acceptable intimidation."

No, that would be illegal. If it were up to me, I would change that, but it's the law at the moment, so I don't consider it acceptable intimidation.

Acceptable intimidation would include, for example, pointing out to workers in a non-specific way unionization would threaten the health of the plant, and might lead to reduced jobs or benefits.

abgie, you wouldn't be able to negotiate an acceptable package for yourself in a non- union environment because it would turn into a minimum wage job in no time.

"No, that would be illegal. If it were up to me, I would change that"

Nothing more to see here.

"abgie, you wouldn't be able to negotiate an acceptable package for yourself in a non- union environment because it would turn into a minimum wage job in no time."

There are tons of non-union jobs that aren't minimum wage.

Putin you're not a socialist, just a reactionist.
Saddest thing is that people see what you write and think you represent the Left, that does the Socialist movement no favours at all.
I realise you are to set in your ways to change, once you stop wanting to fight you can become the change you want to see in this world, at this moment who would want to live in a world designed by you ..... too angry to be effective, too confrontational to understand collaboration, too isolated to be a team player.
Evolution not Revolution, it's better to jaw jaw than to war war.

"That doesn't change anything about my initial point that this plant, and these jobs, exist in large part because of Alabama's favorably pro-business labor laws."

Alabama has a whopping 3 auto assembly plants with a total of about 12,000 workers. So..congrats.

"Evolution not Revolution"

How's New Labour working out for you?

"Saddest thing is that people see what you write and think you represent the Left, that does the Socialist movement no favours at all."

Indeed, we need a left that the Tories and the filthy rich can trust. Elect the Fabians, while they jaw jaw, the bankers go ha ha, and the welfare state goes bye bye.

@abgie, Not large number of people with basically the same job, non-union jobs. Yea, I.B.M. is non union, but that's a diverse workforce, not like a bunch of teachers. I would do your job for HALF the money and NO benefits.

Happy negotiating.

"How's New Labour working out for you?" - slightly better than Old Communism

"welfare state goes bye bye. " Please oh please can we do away with welfare for all? God I hate that program. Sit on your lazy ass and pump out kids for a welfare check. The only people should get welfare are the infirm, elderly, and orphans. Everyone else should get a fucking job.

@ Putin33: "...a "socialist"...who thinks that freeloaders should be able to mooch off the sacrifices of unions"

If you're referring to me you're mistaken. That's not what I was saying at all. I was expressing surprise that unions are still able to maintain a closed shop in the USA, given how much the USA hates "socialism".

I am a staunch trade unionist. I have always been a union member, by choice, in every job I've had. I've been a dues-paying member of USDAW, the NUJ and now the GMB, and I actively encourage others in my workplace to join. During the local government pensions strikes I not only joined the strike, but stood on the picket line. Don't you talk down to me and tell me I'm in favour of freeloading, Putin. You don't know me.


@ Putin: "the persistent pauperization and proletarization of skilled professions like teachers and nurses makes unions necessary"

Absolutely correct. I totally agree. But surely such a situation would motivate teachers and nurses to join their union without being forced to? That's what happens in the UK. UK teachers and nurses are massively unionised, without being forced to.


@ Putin: "I've never had the privilege of being in a union..."

Wow. I do sympathise with you there. It seems utterly bizzare that on the one hand, some industries and workplaces in the USA have closed shops, and yet there is apparently no general right to unionise. In the UK, every worker has
an automatic right to join a trade union, and some unions (such as Unite or the GMB) specifically operate as "general" unions which people from any workplace may join. I think it's awful that you don't seem to have that right in the USA.


@ Draugnar: "he lives in a right to work state and needs the union to protect his incompetent ass, but knows they will all die here in Ohio soon enough from lack of membership"

Either you are mistaken, or Ohio's teaching unions must be providing a poor service to their members.

The vast majority - over 80% - of UK teachers and academics are members of their trade union(s), despite being under no obligation to join. They choose to join and/or remain members because the Union does a good job of representing and supporting them.


As a socialist and a trade unionist I feel that trade unions are at their strongest when they are actively democratic and representative. I have a much greater feeling of solidarity and involvement as part of an organisation that I, and my fellow workers *chose* to join. Why should I feel the same solidarity with an organisation I was *forced* to join on pain of losing my job?

The majority of UK public sector workers are members of their trade unions BY CHOICE because their unions serve them well and give them good reason to be members.


Discuss.

Abge - I haven't followed the whole of this thread, but from an employer's point of view could you imagine how they would negotiate with employees individually? I'm not saying a union has to be involved, but some sort of collective bargaining makes it so much easier for employers to set/agree pay grades.

@Maniac

That could be true. On the other hand, when I was interviewed at mg current job, I was asked what my salary range was. I told them. They could have not hired me if they thought I was too expensive

It's not only the starting salary, but the annual raises. As a non-union employee working for the University of Arizona I found out the hard way. The state government votes each year the COLA based upon the federal inflation rate to be give to all state employees. The UofA's administration gave university employees only half the COLA and put the rest into a pool to be split among the top admins making this decision and the professors bringing in the most research grant money. The university gets a cut of research grants for overhead costs of providing research space and also use that money for admin perks.

Stanford got caught back in the 1980s for using federal research grant money for this type of perks. Since then schools have gotten better at shifting money around to hide this.

The only reason we got back our full COLA starting only with that semester and no back pay was a threat to cut state funding to the state university.

As a former adjunct myself, the idea that teachers are far and few between is laughable. Adjuncts be paid absolute crap precisely because universities churn out PhDs in vast supply relative to available positions

*Bump* for Putin since he slandered me yet is commenting in other threads....

How did I slander you? That you oppose union shops demonstrates that you think employees should be free not to join a union yet get the benefits of unionization.

"That you oppose union shops demonstrates that you think employees should be free not to join a union yet get the benefits of unionization. "

No, it doesn't. It says that he believes like I, that they should be free not to join and take on responsibility for securing their own benefits. That's how it works in Ohio. Don't want to join the union and you don't get union representation.

Ohio is not a RTW state. I don't know what you're talking about. Anyway non union members certainly do get union representation for contracts under RTW laws. Unions are required by law to represent all employees.

And anyway, compulsory union membership is illegal, but dues paying is not.

I don't understand why an equality-for-all Communist would be an advocate of a system where a bunch of shmucks pay 5% of their salary so a couple of fat cats can sit around and be "president" of the union, making excessive wages for doing jack shit other than cave to corporate demands every couple years. lol

Troll fail.

The only failure is Putin....once again cowering in the corner caressing his bruised cheek from being bitch slapped again, and finding himself completely and utterly unable to defend himself against the obvious truth that has been presented.

The ridiculous union hierarchy...where the longer you exist the more pay you receive and the less work you do is an example of everything you are supposed hate.

As always, Putin, you are a fucking fraud, a liar and chump for the wrong cause.

...To side-step the krellin and Putin Variety Hour going on above--

I think unionization is important, that there SHOULD be unions, and strong ones at that...

But I also don't think that it should be mandatory for positions such as teaching.

There are far, far, FAR too many goddamn hacks who get to stick around and 1. Deprive young, hard-working teachers the chance to teach because they have seniority and union protection and 2. Don't even give a damn what they do because, hey, tenure--as long as they don't fuck up too badly, they can just go through the motions and give a lackluster, effortless lecture...

Depriving the STUDENTS of the chance to learn from someone who's both eager to teach and eager to genuinely help them and work with them.

Teachers need unions for things such as their benefits and negotiating a minimum pay...

But there's no way in hell they should all be paid according to an agreed-upon scale.

Deal with each teacher differently.

If Kobe Bryant, Peyton Manning, Hanley Ramirez and other great sports stars can get agents and get paid NOT according to some arbitrary scale but (in theory) according to the quality of their talents...

Then we should give AT LEAST the same level of priority to making sure teaching is a meritocracy and not a race for seniority and tenure...as we all the while LOSE the race in education globally.

Tell me why Peyton Manning (member of a union, the NFLPA) can negotiate for his salary, but teachers are stuck in an arbitrary system, Putin.

Hell, a couple of my English professors could've at least run faster than Peyton and maybe eluded that Seahawks pass rush...

Maybe the game could've been exciting for, oh, 10 minutes instead of 2...

"Then we should give AT LEAST the same level of priority to making sure teaching is a meritocracy and not a race for seniority and tenure...as we all the while LOSE the race in education globally."

As usual, Obi, you have no idea what you are talking about. All the top performing countries in education (Korea, Japan, Finland, Canada, etc) have very strong teachers' unions.

Teachers aren't stuck in an "arbitrary" system either; seniority pay and tenure are much more objective metrics than any merit pay system. Merit pay encourages a harmful "teach to the test" mentality while tenure encourages teacher retention, especially in high need areas.

"As usual, Obi, you have no idea what you are talking about. All the top performing countries in education (Korea, Japan, Finland, Canada, etc) have very strong teachers' unions."

As usual, Frank, people eager to criticize me and gain quick points generally fail to read what I actually wrote...allow me to copy-paste it for you again:

"I think unionization is important, that there SHOULD be unions, and strong ones at that..."

Soooooo...how am I against strong teachers' unions?

What I said following that was:

"But I also don't think that it should be mandatory for positions such as teaching."

So I'm in favor of a strong teacher's union, but that membership in that union shouldn't be mandatory.