Last I checked, this is still "America - Land of the Free". Why should anyone be forced to join any organization they don't want to?
Why should any person, in order to work, be forced to give their hard earned money to a union that funnels millions of dollars to the democratic party?
Why should anyone be forced to pay into a union when he or she is confident enough in their own abilities to perform?
If a person chooses to join a union, then having the dues be part of their deductions is their choice.
All of the people who don't like government making their choices seem to approve of a state passing a law preventing people from making that choice.
Bea,
I think the issue is being forced to be a union member in order to get or keep you job.
I agree, if you have the choice and decide to join a union, then you have to obey their rules for membership. But I do not think you should be forced to be a union member.
Nobody should have to be a part of something they don't believe in just to have a job. A union has nothing to do with one's ability to perform at their given occupation, hence it should not be a requirement of employment. Pretty amazing how a state that constantly points at unions as the reason for their ailments, would or wouldn't allow a person to diassociate themselves.
The aspect of this question which has not been articulated, regardless of membership in the union, all employees (within a union shop) benefit from union activity. Example: if the union negotiates a pay raise, all affected titles get the raise. The problem: members pay dues to earn the advantage of collective action and non-members reap the benefits at no personal cost. There is an alternative; it is called 'agency shop.' Within an agency shop membership in the union is optional. Non-members pay an 'agency fee' in lieu of dues.
It should be remembered, employees CHOOSE to be represented by a union. At some point in time a vote or other demonstration of solidarity was conducted, and the majority chose to become union members. Unions function at the behest of membership; every contract or action is voted on. People who are not part of a union walk away from a movie like "Hoffa" and presume that unions are monolithic, external forces. That is untrue, a misconception. The whole point of a union is formation of a collective bargaining unit. The advantage is obvious, and those who are not union members are indebted to trade unions. Most of the advances in wage, benefit and working conditions enjoyed by American employees were instituted through union action- to be adopted in non-union workplaces.
Much of the current dispute with unions derives from union PACs- especially when certain employees recognize their dues fund the union PAC and are being used to support candidates or political actions not embraced by them. This is indeed a horse of a different color. The clarity of the line between employees and PAC behavior is questionable; then, again, the line between corporate PACs and their employees is no clearer, and the financial connection to the political activity is hazy as well.
Come on you resident personal freedom free-marketeers. Why aren't any of you arguing that if you don't want to join a union, you shouldn't apply at a union shop? Where is the accompanying law that would make it illegal to fire workers for attempting to unionize?
Chris has a point, especially for private business.
But why should the government force you join a union? If you work for NYS, you must join the union. If not, your gone. You don't have to work for the State, but is it he govenments role to force union membership?
Unions are economic entities. They should compete in a free market just like everybody else. If you don't think a union isn't representing your interests, you shouldn't have to support it with your money. If you like the union, pay your dues. Your condition of employment shouldn't depend on whether you want to be part of a union. That violates the core essence of individual freedom.
The reason you have to join the union is simple, they have a contract with the state. I'm sure there are clauses in their collective bargaining agreement forbiding the use of casuals to perform jobs usually done by union members.
Frank,
Why can't you work for the State and not be a union member? Why does a State Trooper or a Correction Officer have to be a union member? "Casuals" are not going to do those jobs. They can still have a union for the ones who want to belong, but is it proper for the government to mandate membership?
John, without the benefit of reading the CBA between the state and the union, I'm only guessing there is verbage in the CBA defining the work that will be performed by union members, and there is also a good possibility the CBA forbids non members from performing that work. The state and the union would have to both be in agreement, and therefore would break the terms of the CBA if non union members were allowed to perform said work.
John, An agreement between the state, and the states empoyee representatives is somewhat different than calling it a mandate.
The need/promise of organized labor has outlived itself, thanks to early labor unions however, the work place was changed forever in this country.
For over 20 years, I was a union rep. for CSEA. For those of you that think the need for unions is a thing of the past, you only need to see some of the grievances that I worked on. Even with a union, many members are treated unfairly. It was up to the union to make things right.
I know that a lot of people would like to see the unions go away. They resent having to pay the dues. But the truth is, ALL workers benefit from unions, not just the members. Safe working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, vacation time, sick leave, pay scales and more are enjoyed by non union workers as well.
If anyone thinks they can negotiate with their employers for raises etc., I'd love to see how well they do. I am quite sure I wouldn't be impressed.
Without unions, you will see you hard earned rights disappear a little bit at a time. Whether you are for or against unions, I hope that you can appreciate everything unions have done for you.
Janice states " Safe working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, vacation time, sick leave, pay scales and more are enjoyed by non union workers as well". Exactly. So why do we need unions?
"If anyone thinks they can negotiate with their employers for raises etc., I'd love to see how well they do. I am quite sure I wouldn't be impressed." I have done this my entire working career. I'm happy with my compensation and benefits - if I wasn't, I'd leave.
"Without unions, you will see you hard earned rights disappear a little bit at a time." Laws are in place to assure a safe working environment, 40 hour work weeks, etc.
Please explain the benefit of a union in this scenario: 2 workers have the same job responsibilities. 1 works hard and gets great evaluation. The other does a so-so job, is sometimes late and receives a poor evaluation. Yet they receive the same exact raise, pension, etc. I just makes 0 sense to me.
Put me with the crowd that believes unions have long outlived their purpose.
The Taylor Law was enacted in 1967. The notion that public employee unions did not exist prior to that is either bombast or ill-informed. The Taylor Law was essentially a trade-off. Public employees were relieved of the right to legally strike; in lieu of that right, public employee contracts remain binding despite expiration. There would be no Taylor Law if public employees hadn't organized.
Public Transit, Sanitary Workers, Social Service Employees striking for benefits and wages during the early 1960s were the impetus for the Taylor Law. District Council 37 in NYC was organizing in the late 1950s, battling Mayor Wagner. By 1958 they had attained EO 49 that allowed collective bargaining for a majority of employee titles; 1959, pay raises for 33 titles; 1960, written contracts for clerical workers in mass transit and by 1962, public labor organizing was wide-spread- as were work stoppages and strikes. Sanitary Worker strikes were so common that pop culture identified the concept with NYC in films of the era. One of the promoters' fears for the 1964 New York World's Fair was the threat of a garbage strike closing it down.
This was the backdrop from which emerged the Taylor Law. That is not to say that the labor movement for public employees wasn't nascent when the Taylor Law was instituted, nor should it be denied that numbers of organized employees increased dramatically in the years to follow. However, as to causality, the labor movement had more to do with inspiring the Taylor Law than the Taylor Law inspiring the labor movement.
The Buffalo Teachers Federation, which represented 2,400 teachers in the Buffalo School system, attempted to negotiate a a new contract beginning in October, 1946. They were asking for a $500 cost of living adjustment for 1946-47 and a $2,000 - $4,000 salary schedule effective in September. BTF president Raymond J. Ast announced on Sunday, February 23, 1947, that "teachers firmly are determined to absent themselves from duty to seek a living wage." The union struck on Monday, February 24.
CSEA was founded in 1910, and by 1948 had 44.000 members. CSEA's first major victories, abolishing the 72-hour institutional work week in the 1930s and achieving overtime pay in the 1940s.
I can't believe there are so
I can't believe there are so many "no" votes!
Last I checked, this is still "America - Land of the Free". Why should anyone be forced to join any organization they don't want to?
Why should any person, in order to work, be forced to give their hard earned money to a union that funnels millions of dollars to the democratic party?
Why should anyone be forced to pay into a union when he or she is confident enough in their own abilities to perform?
If a person chooses to join a
If a person chooses to join a union, then having the dues be part of their deductions is their choice.
All of the people who don't like government making their choices seem to approve of a state passing a law preventing people from making that choice.
Bea, I think the issue is
Bea,
I think the issue is being forced to be a union member in order to get or keep you job.
I agree, if you have the choice and decide to join a union, then you have to obey their rules for membership. But I do not think you should be forced to be a union member.
Nobody should have to be a
Nobody should have to be a part of something they don't believe in just to have a job. A union has nothing to do with one's ability to perform at their given occupation, hence it should not be a requirement of employment. Pretty amazing how a state that constantly points at unions as the reason for their ailments, would or wouldn't allow a person to diassociate themselves.
Kind of silly.
The aspect of this question
The aspect of this question which has not been articulated, regardless of membership in the union, all employees (within a union shop) benefit from union activity. Example: if the union negotiates a pay raise, all affected titles get the raise. The problem: members pay dues to earn the advantage of collective action and non-members reap the benefits at no personal cost. There is an alternative; it is called 'agency shop.' Within an agency shop membership in the union is optional. Non-members pay an 'agency fee' in lieu of dues.
It should be remembered, employees CHOOSE to be represented by a union. At some point in time a vote or other demonstration of solidarity was conducted, and the majority chose to become union members. Unions function at the behest of membership; every contract or action is voted on. People who are not part of a union walk away from a movie like "Hoffa" and presume that unions are monolithic, external forces. That is untrue, a misconception. The whole point of a union is formation of a collective bargaining unit. The advantage is obvious, and those who are not union members are indebted to trade unions. Most of the advances in wage, benefit and working conditions enjoyed by American employees were instituted through union action- to be adopted in non-union workplaces.
Much of the current dispute with unions derives from union PACs- especially when certain employees recognize their dues fund the union PAC and are being used to support candidates or political actions not embraced by them. This is indeed a horse of a different color. The clarity of the line between employees and PAC behavior is questionable; then, again, the line between corporate PACs and their employees is no clearer, and the financial connection to the political activity is hazy as well.
CM Barons - - VERY good
CM Barons - - VERY good explanation !!!!! KUDOS !!!
Come on you resident personal
Come on you resident personal freedom free-marketeers. Why aren't any of you arguing that if you don't want to join a union, you shouldn't apply at a union shop? Where is the accompanying law that would make it illegal to fire workers for attempting to unionize?
Chris has a point, especially
Chris has a point, especially for private business.
But why should the government force you join a union? If you work for NYS, you must join the union. If not, your gone. You don't have to work for the State, but is it he govenments role to force union membership?
Unions are economic entities.
Unions are economic entities. They should compete in a free market just like everybody else. If you don't think a union isn't representing your interests, you shouldn't have to support it with your money. If you like the union, pay your dues. Your condition of employment shouldn't depend on whether you want to be part of a union. That violates the core essence of individual freedom.
The reason you have to join
The reason you have to join the union is simple, they have a contract with the state. I'm sure there are clauses in their collective bargaining agreement forbiding the use of casuals to perform jobs usually done by union members.
Frank, Why can't you work for
Frank,
Why can't you work for the State and not be a union member? Why does a State Trooper or a Correction Officer have to be a union member? "Casuals" are not going to do those jobs. They can still have a union for the ones who want to belong, but is it proper for the government to mandate membership?
John, without the benefit of
John, without the benefit of reading the CBA between the state and the union, I'm only guessing there is verbage in the CBA defining the work that will be performed by union members, and there is also a good possibility the CBA forbids non members from performing that work. The state and the union would have to both be in agreement, and therefore would break the terms of the CBA if non union members were allowed to perform said work.
Frank, That's the point. The
Frank,
That's the point. The state is mandating union membership, which is something I think the State should not be doing.
John, An agreement between
John, An agreement between the state, and the states empoyee representatives is somewhat different than calling it a mandate.
The need/promise of organized labor has outlived itself, thanks to early labor unions however, the work place was changed forever in this country.
The state created the law
The state created the law (the Taylor Law) that created public employee unions, that's why it's a mandate.
True, Howard, but that same
True, Howard, but that same law also severely limits the power of those public unions. It's a labor law born of compromise if I ever saw one.
I voted NO. For over 20
I voted NO.
For over 20 years, I was a union rep. for CSEA. For those of you that think the need for unions is a thing of the past, you only need to see some of the grievances that I worked on. Even with a union, many members are treated unfairly. It was up to the union to make things right.
I know that a lot of people would like to see the unions go away. They resent having to pay the dues. But the truth is, ALL workers benefit from unions, not just the members. Safe working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, vacation time, sick leave, pay scales and more are enjoyed by non union workers as well.
If anyone thinks they can negotiate with their employers for raises etc., I'd love to see how well they do. I am quite sure I wouldn't be impressed.
Without unions, you will see you hard earned rights disappear a little bit at a time. Whether you are for or against unions, I hope that you can appreciate everything unions have done for you.
Janice states " Safe working
Janice states " Safe working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, vacation time, sick leave, pay scales and more are enjoyed by non union workers as well". Exactly. So why do we need unions?
"If anyone thinks they can negotiate with their employers for raises etc., I'd love to see how well they do. I am quite sure I wouldn't be impressed." I have done this my entire working career. I'm happy with my compensation and benefits - if I wasn't, I'd leave.
"Without unions, you will see you hard earned rights disappear a little bit at a time." Laws are in place to assure a safe working environment, 40 hour work weeks, etc.
Please explain the benefit of a union in this scenario: 2 workers have the same job responsibilities. 1 works hard and gets great evaluation. The other does a so-so job, is sometimes late and receives a poor evaluation. Yet they receive the same exact raise, pension, etc. I just makes 0 sense to me.
Put me with the crowd that believes unions have long outlived their purpose.
The Taylor Law was enacted in
The Taylor Law was enacted in 1967. The notion that public employee unions did not exist prior to that is either bombast or ill-informed. The Taylor Law was essentially a trade-off. Public employees were relieved of the right to legally strike; in lieu of that right, public employee contracts remain binding despite expiration. There would be no Taylor Law if public employees hadn't organized.
Public Transit, Sanitary Workers, Social Service Employees striking for benefits and wages during the early 1960s were the impetus for the Taylor Law. District Council 37 in NYC was organizing in the late 1950s, battling Mayor Wagner. By 1958 they had attained EO 49 that allowed collective bargaining for a majority of employee titles; 1959, pay raises for 33 titles; 1960, written contracts for clerical workers in mass transit and by 1962, public labor organizing was wide-spread- as were work stoppages and strikes. Sanitary Worker strikes were so common that pop culture identified the concept with NYC in films of the era. One of the promoters' fears for the 1964 New York World's Fair was the threat of a garbage strike closing it down.
This was the backdrop from which emerged the Taylor Law. That is not to say that the labor movement for public employees wasn't nascent when the Taylor Law was instituted, nor should it be denied that numbers of organized employees increased dramatically in the years to follow. However, as to causality, the labor movement had more to do with inspiring the Taylor Law than the Taylor Law inspiring the labor movement.
The Buffalo Teachers Federation, which represented 2,400 teachers in the Buffalo School system, attempted to negotiate a a new contract beginning in October, 1946. They were asking for a $500 cost of living adjustment for 1946-47 and a $2,000 - $4,000 salary schedule effective in September. BTF president Raymond J. Ast announced on Sunday, February 23, 1947, that "teachers firmly are determined to absent themselves from duty to seek a living wage." The union struck on Monday, February 24.
CSEA was founded in 1910, and by 1948 had 44.000 members. CSEA's first major victories, abolishing the 72-hour institutional work week in the 1930s and achieving overtime pay in the 1940s.