http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1661883

Barry Bonds did it...

This may be the only time in history Barry Bonds has been referenced as a positive, but still--

HE pursued marketing opportunities on his own and didn't sign with MLBPA for unionization.

If it's OK for a roided-up asshole of an athlete, why isn't it OK for the hundreds of thousands of educators out there that merit better and competitive pay for their services?

You think conditions in the education sector are the same as in the world of professional sports, really? How many schoolteachers get approached by major brands asking them to appear in their commercials?

Apples and oranges, man, come on.

At the risk of giving the impression that I agree with Jamie, I have to say I agree with Jamie. Mandatory union membership is crazy. The UK teaching unions tend to work rather well (although their habit of declaring all out war on every education minister regardless of colour or policy does get tiresome, and rules regarding voting for strike action could do with some work). The American system looks like it should fail, and all the evidence I've seen suggests it does.

I'm certainly not in favour of freeloaders, Putin. I actively campaign to increase union membership in my workplace - where the vast majority of workers *are* union members by choice. I'd be happy for the UK's labour laws to be changed to allow union-negotiated improvements to terms and conditions (other than basic pay) to be for union members only. That would seem a fair response to the freeloading problem.

But, that aside, what I need to ask you is this:

1. How can an organisation claim to have any legitimacy if all of its current members were *forced* to join it?

2. What incentive does the leadership of a union have to push for the best possible outcomes for the members, if they know they will still recieve the same levels of dues payments regardless of whether or not the members get a good service and are well represented?

"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."

Because the player's union is actually looking out for the self-interests of the players, who are intelligent enough to understand their individual worth, instead of being mindless sheep going along with the union/corporate machine.

Union members who willingly take the sums given to them despite their true value as an individual contributor are sheep, and deserving of whatever they get...or don't get. It foster laziness and incompetence...what value is hard work and exceptionalism if it earns you precisely what the lazy bum next to you gets?

You're not forced to join at all. Dues are automatically deducted from your paycheque. Why a person would not join is beyond me, in light of the fact that one pays for it.

Right to work laws are a distasteful big-government intervention in the economy. If unions and businesses negotiate closed shops, that's fine with me. Everyone's all "I support free markets!" until the result is something they don't like, then, boom: demands that government intervene against freedom of contract and freedom of association.

I wish academics had a union like teachers do, since the administration dicks us over at every possible turn. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a meaningful oversupply of college professors (even in fields like history or English) relative to the number of students to be taught. But administrators hire under-paid adjuncts and assistants, and instead spend money on new buildings and pointless administrative support staff.

@ Mapleleaf: "You're not forced to join at all. Dues are automatically deducted from your paycheque."

Please explain how forcing someone to pay the membership fee, for an organisation they did not ask to join, is materially different from forcing them to be a member of that organisation?

"Right to work laws are a distasteful big-government intervention in the economy. If unions and businesses negotiate closed shops, that's fine with me. Everyone's all "I support free markets!" until the result is something they don't like, then, boom: demands that government intervene against freedom of contract and freedom of association."

I would be perfectly fine with scrapping RTW laws if they were the *only* intervention in the private economy around unions. But it's incredibly disingenuous to ignore the many restrictions on private employers when it comes to unions and unionization, and then act as if pro-market advocates are being somehow hypocritical when they support RTW laws. Once you have a big, interventionist aparatus governing the whole union process -- and you do -- RTW laws are an important balance in that aparatus.

semck, I would have maybe agreed in the 1930s or something like that, but government support for unions has been decidedly mixed since Taft-Hartley. There's so much government intervention in the economy that I think it's possible to clearly lay out individual debits and credits for who gets the most out of any particular law (although I tend to believe that the overall structure favors the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and marginal).

Plus, I'm always wary of supporting infringement on some rights just because the government infringes on others.

"Plus, I'm always wary of supporting infringement on some rights just because the government infringes on others. "

Well, that works if you completely ignore that there's a legislative *system* that's being designed. Once you stop ignoring that, though, you see that the absence of RTW laws leaves an overall system that is decidedly biased toward unions. Indeed, one might argue that the laws are just a weakening of the initial intervention.

At the worst, what we have here is a disagreement about how to adjust a distasteful set of interventions. Since I'm sure almost any pro-market type would eagerly jump at the deal to scrap the whole set of union-related labor laws (including RTW), there is just no call to question people's devotion to their stated principles.

*bump

@jamiet99 - Unions enter into agreements with companies, whereby they represent the labour force in a CLOSED SHOP. If I apply for such a job IN CANADA, I know this going in. In other words, this is a non-argument. If I go to work at Ford or Chrysler, I'm in Unifor.

"I'm certainly not in favour of freeloaders, Putin"

Then stop opposing union security clauses.

"How can an organisation claim to have any legitimacy if all of its current members were *forced* to join it?"

Because it made the representative of the employees by an election. You know, democracy and such.

"What incentive does the leadership of a union have to push for the best possible outcomes for the members"

Elections and the fact that the members can dump the union and get a new one

What incentive is there for workers to join a union if they can freeload off the backs of others who pay the dues and still get all the benefits?

You say you're not for freeloading but that's what you're allowing for.

And if you don't like the union then don't apply for the job. Conservatives are fond of using the "you can work elsewhere" excuse in defense of poor working conditions but they don't extent that to union shops. Imagine that.

"You say you're not for freeloading but that's what you're allowing for. "

You really can't read, can you? It has been made very clear by the potters who are anti-union, including the OP, that they would gladly take on the risk with *no benefits* from the union if they could opt out. They aren't asking to have their cake and eat it to. They are asking to have their money and be allowed to take responsibility for their own actions and deal with their own situations all by themselves like grown-ups, not little kids needing big brother to come fight their battles for them,

"And if you don't like the union then don't apply for the job. "

What happens when a non-union shop suddenly becomes a union shop and you voted against going union? I need not worry as I doubt there will ever be a software engineers union, but I have friends who have had just this kind of thing happen. They either had to join the union or quit their jobs. Now, how is that at all fair?

That's not legally possible. Once elected, the union represents all workers. You don't have individuals negotiating on the side.

"They either had to join the union or quit their jobs. Now, how is that at all fair?"

Sometimes you lose elections. The scab side lost. Deal with it.

It's only *presently* not legally possible. Laws can (and do) change all the time. The argument is to put an exception in the law that allows someone to *fully* opt out, receiving *no* benefit from union affiliation unless they opt to pay the dues.

Deal with it? So the person is forced out of a job and you say "deal with it"? Real compassion from the socialist who thinks we all should have a welfare state. Maybe if we had your beloved welfare state, it wouldn't be a big deal. But you can't just quit your job and go on welfare.

And how does not wanting a union to *form* at your company make you a scab? A scab only applies if there is a strike. When the union forms, there isn't a strike.

Good luck repealing the duty of fair representation and the myriad problems that would cause.

"Deal with it? So the person is forced out of a job and you say "deal with it"? "

Yeah deal with it.

"But you can't just quit your job and go on welfare."

Oh well. Now you're all of a sudden sympathetic to the plight of the unemployed if they quit because a union won an election? But if an employer just fires them for no reason that's fine and dandy. Rich.

"And how does not wanting a union to *form* at your company make you a scab?"

A scab is anyone who exists to break the union. Non union employees in a union shop are a reserve of scab labor.

Honestly, people. You DO realize that bargaining a contract takes months, right? So, let's say, General Motors bargains 3 months with the Union, and then they're going to do it AGAIN with you and every other moron who thinks they can do better than a COMMITTEE of experienced bargainers.

Bargaining my contract for six figures plus 3 weeks vacation and a few other perks all of 2 hours.

...and this applies how? We're discussing large employee GROUPS with similar job types. Teachers, garbage collectors, factory workers etc....

I think part of my disagreement with Putin here arises from a fundamental difference between the way unions work in the USA compared to the UK.

I have a number of questions which hopefully US-based forum members may be able to answer, which will really help my understanding:

1. Putin seems to be telling me that in unionised workplaces in the USA, workers are regularly given the chance to vote on whether or not their union should continue representing them in that workplace. Is that correct?

2. How often are such ballots normally held?

3. Are there any recent examples of unionised employees voting to stop being represented by the union? OR, as Putin suggests is also possible, "dump[ing] the union and get[ing] a new one" ?

"Putin seems to be telling me that in unionised workplaces in the USA, workers are regularly given the chance to vote on whether or not their union should continue representing them in that workplace. Is that correct?
"

I didn't suggest 'regularly given a chance'. The decertification process is somewhat complicated and doesn't happen regularly. Because you can only do it 90 days before a contract ends or after it expires.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20131025/PC16/131029536

That's one I can find recently.

"OR, as Putin suggests is also possible, "dump[ing] the union and get[ing] a new one" ?"

I can't find a recent example. My father was a union steward and I know his bargaining unit considered changing from IBEW (electrical workers) to another affiliate (I think UE). You have to get signatures from 30% of your bargaining unit and then hold an election. It's also probably not super common because there are restrictions on "raiding" for all AFL-CIO (major union federation) affiliates. AFL-CIO unions cannot pick up locals from other AFL-CIO affiliates for one year after the local dumps their old affiliation.