There is a lot of recent buzz about Maine’s proposed right-to-work law and how it might benefit the state. In his Dec. 1 BDN column, Matthew Gagnon claims that right-to-work laws “at their most basic level … prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers which make membership in a union and payment of union dues a condition of employment.”
This statement is simply incorrect. It is already illegal to make membership in a union and payment of dues a condition of employment. Closed shops (in which a person must belong to a union in order to get a job) have been illegal for over 60 years, and union shops (in which a nonunion employee must join a union within a certain time frame after being hired) have been illegal for nearly 50 years.
In fact, in our country, it is not possible to be compelled to join a union in order to gain or maintain employment. It bears repeating: no one in the United States of America can be forced to join a union.
Union membership is, has been and will continue to be voluntary. Right-to-work laws do nothing to change this fact; what they do instead is take away the right of employers and unions to negotiate a union security clause, which allows unions to collect an agency fee from the nonmember employees that it represents.
This type of clause, which must be agreed to by both the employer and the union when negotiating a contract, requires that all employees — whether they belong to the union or not — bear the cost of negotiating and maintaining the contract. By law, the amount paid by nonmembers may only cover the cost that the union incurs in negotiating and maintaining a contract.
The cost to the employee, which is called an agency fee, can be as little as half of the amount that a full member would pay in dues, although it is more often around three-quarters of the amount.
It is important to note that a union security clause is completely optional. It is possible to negotiate a contract without one. For instance, federal employees who choose not to join a union do not pay an agency fee.
Eliminating the union security clause through right-to-work laws will not change the fact that all employees, regardless of whether they pay dues or not, are bound by the contract that is negotiated between the employer and the union. Nonmembers get the same pay, the same raises, the same benefits and the same improvements in the working environment that union members get, because the contract that the union negotiates covers members and nonmembers equally.
If an employer treats an employee unfairly and that person has a grievance, the union is legally bound to represent that employee whether they pay dues or not. That is fair: whether or not you are a member, the union protects all employees in the workplace equally.
Nonmembers do not and are not required to pay union dues. As mentioned previously, if nonmembers pay anything at all, it is significantly less than what union members pay. But because all employees are represented by the union when the contract is negotiated, and because all employees receive the benefits of working under a contract, all employees should bear the expense of negotiating and maintaining the contract.
That is fair: everyone who is bound by the contract should contribute.
Proponents of right-to-work laws such as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation claim that right-to-work laws will enable a more business-friendly environment and lead to economic growth, but there is no indication that right-to-work laws actually accomplish these goals.
Both the highest and lowest unemployment rates are in right-to-work states, so these laws have no clear impact on economic growth that leads to job creation. However, right-to-work laws correlate strongly with decreased wages and lower median incomes. In other words, right-to-work laws do not help people get jobs, and they tend to reduce employee income.
Maine has rejected right-to-work six times in the past because Mainers understand fairness. The cost of negotiating and maintaining a contract that benefits all employees should be paid for by all employees. That’s fair. Maine doesn’t need right-to-work; we just need to get to work.
Kate Cuddy is a union member and volunteers in political activity to support unions. She lives in Hermon.
Still, lie all you want, but payment of your so-called agency fee is still dues and is still a condition of employment.
How is it dues if it is entirely different from dues and goes only to paying the costs attributed to maintaining a contract? It’s a little laughable you call that a lie, but have no issue with Gagnon’s claims for example.
But is that really an issue in private sector employment? There’s no question in my mind that the “fair share” provisions should be removed in the public sector, but are the negotiations between a private entity and a union any of the state’s business? An employer may or may not consent to allowing the agency fees. The unfair component of labor law is the one that requires employers to negotiate in good faith with a union. That’s an example of a policy that infringes on our liberty and needs to be rectified.
Ok I can see your last point and agree. I will consider your first point.
You make a good point here. I’ve never looked at it in that light.
“Lie” is a big word. Dues means you get to have a say and a vote in what the union does, paying an agency fee just means you’re doing the least you can to support the negotiation and maintenance of the contract.
No one can force you to join and be part of the union. That’s not a lie, it’s a fact. You can be made to pay an agency fee if it’s part of the contract that covers your unit. That is not the same as dues.
I know ostensibly what it is. The fact is it is still dues with limitations. Call it what you will. It still goes to the union and would be better described as legalized extortion.
It’s not dues. Not even with limitations. It’s a fee for services rendered. If you feel agency fees are legalized extortion, what you call someone who receives services that cost money and yet pays nothing for them? Following your logic, it seems that person would be a thief.
Why is agency fee any different than you wanting to drug test welfare recipients? If you don’t want to pay the fee, don’t apply for the job. No one is forcing anyone. If you want the benefits, meet the requirements. Same principle.
It’s pretty obvious what these porposed “right to work” laws are designed to do — take away the bargaining power of workers. The idea is to disolve and erode collective bargaining power. We’ve already seen low and middle wage/salary jobs fail to keep up with cost of living/inflatation. But by all means, let’s see that problem become worse! After all, Maine Republican politicians are the ones seeking to circumvent minimum wage requirements, of course they’re pushing this kind of stuff.
I guess the writer never heard of an agency shop. Which does
compel a worker to pay what amounts to union dues and is usually
tied in to a condition of employment. And if this writer says it doesn’t
exist, this writer is writing under false pretenses and has no clue as to
what she is saying. Anyone who pays this “fee” does not call it a fee,
they say they are paying union dues.
What’s funny is that we don’t see you substantiating any of your points.
What’s even funnier, you evidently haven’t any clue as
to what the differences are between various types of unions.
I gave a definition of one she failed to mention and you can
look it up yourself. You occupiers want everyone to do things
for you for free, Do your own homework.
Hahaha, I’m an occupier now? News to me.
If anyone were to look it up, they’d see that she explained it perfectly in her article. Perhaps you should re-read the op-ed?
Actually Scott, I did read the article. As a former
union official, I can for a fact tell you that in the
company where I was employed, every person,
member or not, paid UNION DUES. Not one
person didn’t pay a FULL portion of what the
union dues was. And it was a condition
of employment. If you ask any employee what
it is called…they will tell you union dues.
I can also tell you, the same people who did not
want to be members, did not care one iota about
anyone representing them and when there was a strike
had to walk out like everyone else or be ostracized.
No one cared whether they wanted to walk or not or
how they fed their families. These same people also
felt they were well compensated and needed no one
to tell them what work they could or could not do.
They didn’t want money “taken” from them but had
no say or choice in the matter. That is the problem.
How long ago was this? There was a time when this was true, but it’ s been more than 30 years. I don’t know another way to say this, but it’s federal law for the private sector. It’s illegal. The closed shop, where you had to join a union to get a job, was made illegal by Taft-Hartley, and CWA vs. Beck (I think this is the case, it may be GM vs. NLRB) put the coffin nail into the union shop, where you had to join the union to keep your job.
No matter what you remember from however long ago, it’s illegal now. If it’s still going on anywhere, it’s illegal. Totally.
The author is talking about agency shops. Those are the people who pay the agency fee! You missed the entire point of the article. The article is a defense of the fairness of agency fees (which are only paid at an agency shop, where else would they be paid?) and of the fairness of unions having to cover all employees.
If it were dues, the employee would pay more and have a say in union business. It’s a fee for services, that’s it.
The right to work for less is what this really amounts to. Forget about the two sided argument over the language. The best approach for looking after your own best interest is to simply do a few minutes of research into prevailing wage rates in Right to Work vs non-RTW states. The evidence makes it clear that RTW states have very substantially lower wages. This is true for both unionized and non-unionized workers in those states. The unions actually set a bar for wages that non-union shops must compete with, whether they like it or not. This keeps the wages of the non0union workers buoyant.
Why wage earners would support right to work laws is beyond me. It is a serious restriction on the freedom to organize. It is also a bad move financially. Prevailing wages are significantly lower in right to work states. There is also no evidence that employment prospects are any better in those states either.
Unions make everything more expensive. This is what unfair competition does. Somebody has to pay those million dollar salaries that union heads make. Unions are only a cash conduit to the Democratic (who needs the poor) party./ NEA donated $300 million dollars to political campaigns
South Carolina, RTW state, unemployment rate 10%.
Maine, unemployment rate is 7%
Extortion is profitable
Is that why Nike shoes are so expensive?
So when corporations get marketplace protections and subsidies, that is fair but when workers assemble to secure their own interests, that is unfair. That is a grossly different America than most of us live in.
I never said I’m in favor of marketplace protections and subsidies for corporations. Unions are in favor of all and any favoritism legislation can provide. Isolationism and tariffs is one of their favorite ways of tiltin the marketplace.
If you have to use sweeping generalizations to make your point, you don’t have one….
I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where you link to anything that back up what you have to say. No union leader makes millions a year. None. Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO president, makes under $1,000,000 a year.
Where’s the link to the NEA donation? I didn’t see that one either.
Union rules suggest that its not my role to provide links. Talk to the shop steward; he’s the one dealing the cards.
The salaries of ‘Union heads’ (as you call them) are public information. Look them up for yourselves. Then – in the name of fairness – look up the salary info for the top layer of
owners/management of unionized companies to see what they earn.
How much do CEO’s of companys make a year ??
What a croc of bs. I can demonstrate a dozen examples of where union membership is mandated. Try doing an electrical job in Manhattan without a union card. Try getting on a stage on Broadway without a union card (death of musicals brought on by unions) Try working for the state without paying dues. Unions should be illegal.
Then demonstrate those examples.
Please demonstrate away. I’ll make it easy for you. Name one.
Try playing in instrument on Broadway in a theater. You must be a union worker to work at all municpal buildings, airports, public buildings in NYC.
Private union membership is down to 7% in the U.S.. It is no coincidence that the wages are in the toilet at the same time. It is time to stop hiding from the scary union monster hiding under your bed. The top 1% have seen their wealth explode by 300% in the last 20 years while the working men and women of America have gotten the shaft. We obviously need more unions, not less.
Extortion is profitable
Funny, most unions members do not consider it extortion to earn a living wage or have health care and retirement. Obviously you do. Do you know of someplce else the working men and women can turn to get help with wages and health care? The GOP? Lol. Big corporate America? Lol. The top 1 %? Lol. Government that is controlled by filthy rich union haters? Lol.
——————————
The reason that wages are down for unskilled union workers is that they faced competition. The only way a union can survive is if all competition is eliminated; exactly the way the mafia works.
Competition from who? Chinese sweat shops? A communist regime with no environmental or worker safety laws? If you are going to hop in bed with the Koch brothers, you are going to have to do better than that.
——————————
Hmmm… competition? Business owners are making more money than ever before, are they not facing competition? Maybe they’re making more money because wages have been stagnant whilst productivity has continued to increase.
Whatever you call it, it’s still a war on the working people. Laplague and his bunch are marching lock-step to the directive handed down from ALEC and the Heritage bunch, out of state power has them bought and sold. Why do you think Kestral went to Wisconsin? Because they [ALEC, Koch Bros, etc] want to make their other puppet gov, Walker look good. These people are nothing but corporate tools.
I appreciate the facts presented here, although I would like some independent verification that they are true. But, if they are true, I was completely unaware of this information. Why bother with Right to Work if no one is obliged to pay dues that supports any union activities other than those that benefit the employee directly?
They’re required to pay an agency fee and that’s what those who seek to end bargaining power for collective workers are hanging their hats on. It seemly seems like a good excuse to argue against/erode unions as a whole.
My God, you finally said something that made sense!!!! You must be turning into a Democrat!!!
Now that there is nonsense, that is.
If an individual doesn’t want to pay an agency fee to the union that is his right. But it is also correct to prevent any union negotiated raises or workplace improvements from going to the individual who doesn’t pay agency fees to the union.
Can that same individual then negotiate his own terms with the employer, even if those terms are better than that offered to the union?
Yes.
That is the slippery slope that this is all designed to put labor on. This is nothing more that divide an conquor. It has worked well in the south for years. They have the average southerner convinced that unions are communist orgainzations. They work poor white vs poor black like master musicians. If a poor white wants a raise they tell them be thankful you have a job because that black guy over there is willing to do your job for a nickle an hour less than what you get. If the poor black guy wants a raise they tell them the same thing.
There is nothing new in divide and conquor. It has worked for thousands of years. Pitting tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion, race vs race. All of which enables a third party to sit back and reap the benefits.
Wandini, assuming that an individual would be allowed to go their own way, s/he couldn’t do it effectively without paying someone to help them. Contracts are legal documents, and you’d have to have someone help understand everything in it (unless you want to take the employers word for it). Also, if you think the employer is breaking the contract, the lone employee would have to pay all the costs associated with that grievance.
That would undermine the fundamental principle of unionism. The workers speak with one voice to counter the singularly powerful voice of the employer. Breaking it up into multiple parts is what anti-union forces would like to see. It weakens unions, thereby allowing the wealthy and powerful to have more control. That is never a good thing for the hourly worker.
If breaking up the workers in multiple parts are what the anti-union forces would like to see this already exists with some unions. There are unions that have acceded to the practice of two tier wages for union members doing the same job. The fundamental principle of unionism is to protect the worker but there are also cases of unions taking cuts to save their jobs. I have worked in both types of shops. In fact, one of the unionized places I worked hadn’t had a strike since 1948. When negotiations for a new contract opened do you think that the owners figured that the workers would strike to get their demands met? The problem with unions is they have lost their guts and this may be a result of the loss of guts on the part of the membership but I doubt it. In addition, what has happened to the organizational drives to create new union shops. I , personally, think that unions became complacent in organizing, leadership, and membership and are now suffering the result of that complacency. Unions should become more militant in both organizing and protection of the membership.
The two-tier system you mention is a hard thing. It’s a way that unions have changed to deal with hard economic realities. Unions do take cuts to save jobs. It’s one way unions help protect workers. Sometimes the whole takes a cut to save a few, sometimes they don’t. The great thing is, all the workers get a say and a vote… if they pay dues.
Nice try… as you yourself describe, you can be compelled to give money to a union as a precondition for your employment, even if you don’t want to join the union. That is just obscene… you can call it an “agency fee” or whatever other euphemism you want to – the union is getting money from a non-union member, which is nothing more than a gift to make unions more powerful than they would naturally be.
If you want to join a union, join it and pay. If you don’t want to join a union, do not join and do not pay. It is the most simple, easy to understand, rational, and fair system. You are arguing to maintain a system that is designed to create more politically powerful unions. Unions should survive and thrive and prosper on their own merits. If they provide value to a workplace of workers, they will have all the members and money they want… if they don’t, they die. Pretty simple.
Your final statement is hilarious to me. I’d love to see you maintain that “survive and thrive” on the merits argument elsewhere. Care to add it to the discussion of farm subsidies? Tax cuts for the rich?
Cant give tax cuts to the 46% who don’t pay any. Everyone else is rich in your world. If your not a victim you must be evil, what a warped world.
Please, by all means abolish farm subsidies… you will get no more applause than you will from me for that. I despise how warped the farming industry is because of those subsidies.
As for tax cuts to the rich, I’m beyond sick of hearing that. You give a 0.000000000000000001% tax cut for an upper income tax bracket, and by the sheer numbers involved, you will technically be giving a bigger tax cut to them in real dollars than you would to a low income person you give a 50% tax cut to. You make more, and exponentially you pay more, and any change one way or another becomes large.
What cracks me up about your complaint is that it isn’t grounded in some kind of legitimate public policy concern – you just despise the rich and want to see them pay out the nose for their success (as if they don’t already).
Serious question – let’s say that in a hypothetical world (one I concede doesn’t exist), you could abolish income taxes on everyone in this country, allow everyone to keep 100% of what they earn, but STILL have the money to pay for whatever bag of goodies you want (national healthcare, whatever…) Would you accept such a system? Would you let that billionaire keep all his billions if you didn’t “need” it?
My belief is that no, you wouldn’t… because it isn’t about reducing the deficit or funding programs… the motivation on the left to fight against “tax cuts for the rich” is about one thing and one thing only: sticking it to the fat cat because you don’t like the fact that he is a fat cat. If you could get by without taxing him into the ground, you would still tax him into the ground, because it is what he deserves, right?
I think you’re the problem with the Republican party. You won’t allow any debate to occur on taxation because of all your presumptions regarding your opponents’ motivations. We can’t even have a discussion without being accused of hating the rich, of being jealous of the rich, etc. It’s pretty ridiculous. Once of the reasons we’re going further into debt is by funding all these extensions of the Bush tax cuts and what I see is the working and middle classes paying higher taxation rates than the hyper rich. Your hypothetical creation is stupid and baseless. All it does is highlight the paranoia and/or smear attempts by the right. Obama proposing a base tax that can’t be circumvented through credits, loopholes, etc. isn’t class warfare — it’s just making things fair. Screech all you want about envy and whatever else, but when there are avenues for a millionaire to avoid paying taxes and those same avenues aren’t available for the working and middle classes that is a system that is inherently unfair.
If wanting to see a tilted system become leveled isn’t a legitimate policy concern in your eyes — I really don’t care because your rantings are intellectually dishonest. You talk about a “survive and thrive” mentality, but then asking the rich to pay the same tax rates is suddenly a marker of disdain. Whatever happened to thriving? The rich can’t survive without being coddled through preferential rates, credits, etc.? Following your statements and logic, they ought to be able to survive on their own merits otherwise “if they don’t, they die. Pretty simple.”
I have no problem asking the rich to pay the same rate as everyone else… I think the jungle gym that is the tax code is beyond ridiculous. The problem I have is the class warfare “pay their fair share” garbage – it is exactly why I believe that your motivation is not good policy but a social attitude toward success and wealth. I make a million dollars a year and have to pay 25% of my income, that is two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand-dollars of taxes… saying it should be higher because the rich aren’t “paying their fair share” is insanity… 250k isn’t somebody’s fair share? Does it really need to be 40%? Do we hate wealth and success so much that we need to push that back up to 70% at the top like it was in the 1970s?
I asked the rhetorical question simply to make a point. You care about society being stratified – you care about the “gap” between rich and poor as though it matters. What matters is how healthy, happy, and able the poorest citizens are… not how big the difference is between them and the rich.
Your ultimate goal – and I’m not assuming anything because every Democrat running for any office in America states it openly – is to use the tax code as a vehicle to make that gap smaller… the implications of forcibly taking that much of another person’s earned property are irrelevant… no man should have as much and the left will use the tax code to make sure that happens.
If we could fund all the antipoverty and health programs on the Democratic wish list without taxing any income, I believe rather strongly that you, and most of your ideological kin, would not take the deal, because that gap bothers you SO MUCH and you feel the need to do something about it.
You can say I’m what’s wrong with the GOP until you’re blue in the face, but the fact will remain that this attitude is real on your side, it is based on class envy and punitive financial retribution for somebody daring to be successful, and it is the source of your economic philosophy. You could at least have the decency to admit as much… and if I’m wrong, I’d love to hear how, and why.
You have your mind made up apparently. I’ve explained my feelings and it is miles away from what would constitute envy. Don’t talk about decency either — you’re already a joke enough as it is.
But what I am wondering is is there any way to definitely say that the “agency fee” is going only to the bargaining expenses and not to political activity? And what if you don’t like the deal the union bargains for you?
Human nature would lead people to not support a union financially, even if they find it has merit–just like most people do not “tithe” at their church, even if they are faithful members. Sometimes it is just hard to let go of money if you are not forced to do it…
I’m on the fence about Right to Work.
That’s a good question. Union officials have to do paperwork that is turned into the Dept. of Labor that quantifies what they spend their time on. I’m told it’s fairly intense. The LCRED committee asked the same questions of MSEA and they were provided with evidence of how unions must show they’re not misusing funds.
Because unions had many bad actors in the past, there are significant restrictions and reporting requirements now.
You’re point about human nature is also right on. If a person can get something without paying for it, why would they?
I thought it worth mentioning that when a workplace unionizes, it is often the case that employees who opt not to join the union are exempted from paying agency fees (or any other fee). For instance, I believe it was Bangor Hydro’s original agreement that employees who had not signed cards were not required to contribute to the union in any way, since they didn’t want to be a part of it but didn’t really have a choice since the majority wanted the union. However, all new employees were required to pay at least the agency fee, the rationale being that they had a choice whether or not to seek employment there.
Also, if you don’t like the deal the union bargains for you, you can join the union and get on the committee that does the bargaining or at least vote on the terms of the agreement, or you could get some like-minded co-workers together and get your workplace “decertified” (which means kick the union out) and work without a contract.
Unions were created to offset management excesses. Dues pay for union services and contract negotiations. Taxpayer money for unions? Should we privatize all school and state services? Public service trumps the profit motive every time. Ever worked for a state agency or in a school? Employees work for peanuts and take crap all day long from disgruntled citizens. People can choose to join or not. Everyone benefits. It’s a GOP canard to lie to consituents that unions promote lifetime, unaccountable jobs. It is a way for people to enter middle class America. There is corruption and incompetence in public and private employment. Public employees needed to be protected from incompetent political bosses. The one thing I would change would be a way to get rid of deadwood teachers who are incompetent who are just waiting to retire while they should have been fired years before.
What is obscene is the fact that unions are forced to bargain in good faith for and protect people who receive the same pay and benefits as those who pay union dues. Why would anyone think it was fair that people who don’t want to pay anything receive the same benefits as those that pay? As far as people’s political views and not wanting their union dues to support a party they don’t agree with they have the right to address that also. I worked union for 37 years and we had lots of members with different political views and not once in that 37 years was I told who to vote for. The union always made it clear who they supported but also made it clear that that it was not their intent to tell people who to vote for. History shows that as union membership increases so does the amount of middle class income that goes into our economy. Working as a union member you enter into a contract with your employer that was agreed upon by the employer and employees and things run smooth until one side or the other does not honor the language of that contract and trys to tip the scales in their favor. I never had a problem paying union dues because working union made life for me and my family better by negotiating for fair wages and benefits that allowed the employer to make a healthy profit while rewarding the employees for helping them make that profit. This results in a much more stable and educated workforce because people want to make a better life for themselves.
All my years working in the union at the railroad, the state , an BIW not once did they tell me who to vote for .
Hey Matt, private union membership is down to a whopping 7% in this country while the wages are stuck in the early 90’s. At the same time the top 1%, your idols, have seen their pots of gold explode by 300%. There are 6 people in Arkansas who now possess more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans, or 96 MILLION people. The decline in union membership and the obscene wealth distribution go hand in hand. To quote my distant relative, Teddy Roosevelt, “America can only be a great place to live if it is a little great for everyone”. Not just members of the GOP or the top 1%.
Wages and unionization may have been tied together in the early 1900s, but they are not tied together today. At some point, you are going to have to wrap your brains around the fact that the economy of 2012 is not the economy of 1912 – one which relied on protectionist tariffs, where communication was difficult and transportation (particularly global transportation) was slow, where labor laws were non-existent and labor unions picked up the slack, etc.
We live in a fast moving, mobile, country, and the languishing wages are less about fewer unionized workers, and more about cheap foreign labor and free trade.
It might not be the popular argument to make, but paying American factory workers $65,000 at a non-union auto manufacturer in South Carolina is better than paying $0 to now unemployed but formerly $90,000 earning workers in Washington, who would see their business go overseas due to cheap labor otherwise. Still a great wage, and it keeps work here, and quite frankly, re-establishes a more natural and stable and realistic labor market than the ones that have been inflated by unions and their cozy relationship to government.
You can romanticize the notion of unions and pretend we still live in 1920 if you like, but it doesn’t make for reality. Were you to get everything you wanted and dramatically ramp up union membership in this country, wages wouldn’t go up, because for every dollar you got workers, plenty more dollars would disappear as the high cost of labor drives out production to other countries.
The economies of 1912 and 2012 are more similar than different Matt. It still has everthing to do with wages keeping pace with inflation. Without this, we have no middle class. And an America with no middle class will implode from within. No one to act as a buffer between the filthy rich and the dirt poor. I noticed that you are not too horrified about 6 people in Arkansas having more wealth than 96 MILLION Americans. Wealth that was partially derived from under employing 1.4 million American workers. Workers who could sure use a union. I wear out a pair of union made work boots about once a year Matt. I am bound to see things differently than someone who wears loafers and pretends to work. Until I see some other entity that gives a hoot about the working men and women of America, I’ll be pro union and anti greed Matt. We are fast becoming a nation of mansions and mobile homes Matt. A very sad end to a great nation is just around the corner, according to my history book, which is never wrong.
——————————
And you are blaming the wrong thing for the failure of wages to keep up, is my point. The economy is *not* that similar… employees have infinitely more leverage even by themselves than they did in the early 1900s… the mobility/portability of the country and the job market means you can sell your services to this company or that, play them off each other to negotiate better salaries/benefits, etc.
In the early 1900s workers would be with one company in one career for 40 years and retire with the gold watch… my grandfather was a unionized mill worker for the paper industry for 30 years. The model in the modern American economy is people changing jobs frequently, often times dozens of time before retirement. We are all more fluid, more malleable, more mobile… and that has a major effect on the job market and how we negotiate wages.
I’ve changed jobs rather frequently over the last six years, and each time I do, I negotiate for my own salary, and I do it by finding a number of options and negotiating for better deals accordingly – as do most people.
You hate that wages are stagnant. So do I. But the reason they are is not because unionization has dropped. More unionization exacting more salary/benefit concessions will result in higher individual wages, but fewer people making those wages (pretty simple math), thus more or less equalizing the system.
The stagnant wages exist for a variety of reasons… globalization, free trade, etc… the saturation of the industrial revolution… many many things… but unionization is not one of them.
And your rather grandiose opinion about the downfall of American society is cute, but hardly realistic. This country was very much more “mansions and mobile homes” in the 1920s… and the fact of the matter is that even the poorest American is infinitely more “rich” in terms of health and material possessions than the poorest Americans in the “golden age” of the 40s and 50s that union advocates so often romanticize. Rich and poor are very relative concepts – go ask a Nigerian peasant if an American welfare recipient is “poor”, for instance.
The country has a lot of challenges facing it, but using the government to artificially prop up unionization when the rationale for unions gets weaker every year will do nothing to rescue the middle class from stagnant wages, and if you think it will, I don’t think you understand macroeconomics very well.
“using the government to artificially prop up unionization” Um, no, actually, you are the one advocating for using the government to interfere with free bargaining between labor and management.
“Wages and unionization may have been tied together in the early 1900s, but they are not tied together today.” Yes, they are. Here’s some info on this: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/
Every single bullet point on that list is something that makes American industry less competitive vs. foreign markets… as a free trade nation, that means it raises the cost of doing business and makes it more likely that a production facility will relocate outside the country… which would of course make every single one of those bullet points irrelevant (even if they weren’t a classic example of correlation not indicating causation), since not having a job because your plant moved out of the country makes any additional wages moot.
It has happened in Maine time after time after time.
If you’d like to write about this in the paper, I’d be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, can you address the point that the link backed up instead of deflecting?
Mr. Gagnon, why is it ok for an employee at a union represented shop to accept higher wages, better working conditions and benefits and pay none of the costs of negotiating the contract that brought about those benefits? Why on earth is it more fair to get something for nothing? That doesn’t seem to make good sense.
“You are arguing to maintain a system that is designed to create more politically powerful unions.” In fact, you have it backwards. You, Mr. Gagnon, are arguing for a system which would unfairly weaken unions. The union MUST represent the worker, regardless of whether or not the employee pays anything, this includes in grievances that go all the way to legal arbitration. That’s fair, but all employees should pay for this representation that they all get. THAT is fair.
Unions do provide value, that’s why a majority of workers in a shop voted for them. The complainers should feel free to organize a decertifacation drive. That’s fair.
Wages are negotiated – for non union employees – directly between employee and employer. If I am not a part of a union, the employer can negotiate with me up or down based on need/demand/etc. I’ve operated outside of union shops my entire professional career, and in each instance, I negotiated for what I thought I was worth vs. what the employer thought I was worth. Is it really your position that union negotiated contracts dictate individual salaries of non-unionized workers? Because that isn’t the case.
As for working conditions, that has LONG ago been a matter of state law rather than union negotiations.
As for your second point, that is actually not true… but if you want to suggest it is for the sake of this conversation, than so be it. I am more than happy with a system that lets unions off the hook for representation in return for worker freedom to say no to paying them any money.
Most in unions have real jobs though. Bargaining with a newspaper on how much your packaged talking points will sell for is a bit different than let’s say a nurse working at a hospital.
For what has to be the hundredth time I have told you this, being an op-ed columnist is not my job… indeed I barely have time to do it because of my actual job in pr/communications. Your insults are getting very old…
No the Federal law says that if there is a union in the work place THEY HALF TO REPRESENT every one in the work place
“Is it really your position that union negotiated contracts dictate individual salaries of non-unionized workers?”
I don’t recall saying this. Re-reading my reply, I didn’t say this. It
is the case that higher union density in a state generally correlates
to higher wages, but I didn’t make that point. My point was that it is
unfair for an employee at a unionized shop receive the benefits of a
union contract without contributing to the negotiation and maintenance
of that contract. Would you care to address my actual point?
“As for working conditions, that has LONG ago been a matter of state law rather than union negotiations. ”
Working conditions are a matter of Federal and State law, as well as
individual contracts. They are discussed in nearly every contract
negotiation. Ask a business owner whose employees are unionized.
As the original article shows, it is fair that all employees are represented by the union. In fact, it is necessary. Otherwise you get a fractured workplace which doesn’t have a unified voice in negotiations with a singularly powerful voice: that of the employer.
I’m sure you’d love a system wherein unions are weakened, but thankfully, Maine’s not going to do that.
“I don’t recall saying this. ”
Sure you did. By saying that the agency fee is justified because non-unionized workers get the benefit of wages negotiated by the union, you are suggesting (wrongly) that the salary a non-union worker makes is dictated somehow by the union negotiation. It isn’t. It is directly negotiated between employer and employee.
You are just wrong.
If, by non-union, you mean employees who work in a unionized shop but don’t join the union, then of course they benefit from the contract. I honestly don’t know what else you could be talking about. I never mentioned non-union workers aside from those who don’t join the union but accept the wage increases and working condition improvements negotiated by the union they didn’t join.
Please quote the section of my answer you’re referring to, it would really help alleviate my confusion.
An do away with the law that says equel work equel pay than
Matthew Gagnon posted below: “That is just obscene… you can call it an “agency fee” or whatever other euphemism you want to – the union is getting money from a non-union member, which is nothing more than a gift to make unions more powerful than they would naturally be”
What is obscene is the desire of management to pit worker vs worker. There is no gift involved here. The non-members get service for their “agency fee”. They get to work in a shop where at least they know that there are knowlegable people who know the labor laws inside out and will go to bat for them.
It’s yet another example of class warfare on behalf of the Conservatives.
Ms. Cuddy, your idea of “fairness” is remarkably similar to President Obama’s when he implores the American people to continue throwing money into the black hole that is the federal budget (which has DOUBLED in a mere TEN years.)
Remember this from high school? – “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” – George Orwell, Animal Farm.
Is it “fair” for unions to nearly exclusively support liberal politicians with the money they collect from non-members? Is it “fair” to expect employers to be forced to collect union dues and fees as part of their payroll withholding system? I think not! Union members are not “more equal” than non-members.
“Is it “fair” for unions to nearly exclusively support liberal politicians with the money they collect from non-members?” The agency fee cannot, by law, be used for political causes. So the answer is “it doesn’t happen”. Only dues money can be used in that capacity, from members who voluntarily join.
“Is it “fair” to expect employers to be forced to collect union dues and fees as part of their payroll withholding system?”
Yes. Employers withhold 401k money, health insurance and taxes. If this fee is required by the contract (which is the only way a fee can be assessed, through the negotiated contract), why shouldn’t the employer make it easy on everyone?
You are right. Union members are not more equal than non-members. The only thing that distinguishes a member from a non-member is that members can vote and hold office.
Oh, and they get to wear t-shirts with the union seal on them. I suppose non-members could too, though. Who’s gonna know?
There was a time when your union leadership was the guy working next to you on the assembly line or riding into the mine with you. These days, union leaders are overpaid suits just like the corporate suits they “fight” for the employees.
Unions would have a lot more sympathy if they hadn’t evolved into a big business of their own. Knowing that a big chunk of my pay would go to keep union leaders and lobbyists wealthy is enough to keep me out of a union.
I understand what you are saying. I wouldn’t want to spend the $45 a month I pay in union dues to some cigar-smoking old man with gold teeth and soft hands either.
But look with me for a minute.
Fire Chief Jeffrey Cammack, IAFF Local 772.
Is he wealthy? Is he a corporate suit? No, he’s a firefighter.
Manager Mike Jenkins, USW Local 80.
Is he wealthy? Is he a corporate suit? No, he’s a steelworker.
Business Manager John Napolitano, UA Local 716.
Is he wealthy? Is he a corporate suit? No, he’s a pipefitter.
Union leadership comes from within the union. The IBEW officers? They like to say they’re just electricians in suits. That’s if they are wearing a suit. They practiced their trades; they aren’t professional executives. They don’t hire professional consultants to write propaganda for them.
Then let’s look at Matt Gagnon.
Is he wealthy? Is he a corporate suit? No, he’s a shill and he’s got your strings.