The Essence of Trickle Down

[HopAlongBunny]

The Supremes will weigh in on a little dispute.
Union fees: why on earth should anyone pay those?
I mean unions (unlike corporations) aren't even real people.

http://business.financialpost.com/pm...-sector-unions

Having failed to make unions illegal, this is the next best thing.

[rory_20_uk]

On the narrow issue of whether unions can take your money for a service you don't want to me the answer is clearly "no" - in the same way any other company can not just help itself to my money and tell me it is offering a service. Leave that sort of theft to the State!

Unions are even in their deeply flawed state a necessary evil. In an ideal world there would be some system of audit to ensure the leadership are not just bought by the company they represent the workers of.

[HopAlongBunny]

It is a little ironic that you can make that statement:

No, they should not have any resources to do what they do: Yes, they should exist.

Most union members I know wouldn't have it any other way; better pay, health, dental maybe even a retirement program.
The bloody history of how we got to a point where many don't see them as necessary is lost in time.
Looking at how labor is treated where unions do not exist, tells me little has really changed.

[rory_20_uk]

It is a little ironic that you can make that statement:

No, they should not have any resources to do what they do: Yes, they should exist.

Most union members I know wouldn't have it any other way; better pay, health, dental maybe even a retirement program.
The bloody history of how we got to a point where many don't see them as necessary is lost in time.
Looking at how labor is treated where unions do not exist, tells me little has really changed.

They should have the resources from those who agreed to receive the service. Otherwise why should they do a good job? They can take the money - even when the person doesn't want it taken. Again, leave that to the State.

I am well aware of how bad things were before unions. And certainly in Europe much of what Unions fought for is now codified in Law which does make them a lot less relevant: the work environment I have is covered by Health and Safety laws, not the agitation of the work-site union. They still have relevance, but deaths in factories,, shipyards and mines is not a common occurrence.

The bosses of unions are mainly concerned about themselves, as is to be expected - in the UK they'll easily take home over £100k for what is a much easier job than those who they represent. But hopefully they do in the meantime do something to help those who pay them beyond the potted statements every time there are job losses.

[HopAlongBunny]

I agree with most of what you say.
There are good unions/bad unions; even within the same union, representation of different parts can lead to variable outcomes.
If there was a way to do away with unions and maintain the same voice for labor, I don't think many would object.
The problem, is people

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with most of what you say.
There are good unions/bad unions; even within the same union, representation of different parts can lead to variable outcomes.
If there was a way to do away with unions and maintain the same voice for labor, I don't think many would object.
The problem, is people

American unions are, all too often, out of step with their members needs. They are voluntary in most places. If you join, you agree to pay the dues.

[a completely inoffensive name]

They should have the resources from those who agreed to receive the service. Otherwise why should they do a good job? They can take the money - even when the person doesn't want it taken. Again, leave that to the State.

I am well aware of how bad things were before unions. And certainly in Europe much of what Unions fought for is now codified in Law which does make them a lot less relevant: the work environment I have is covered by Health and Safety laws, not the agitation of the work-site union. They still have relevance, but deaths in factories,, shipyards and mines is not a common occurrence.

The bosses of unions are mainly concerned about themselves, as is to be expected - in the UK they'll easily take home over £100k for what is a much easier job than those who they represent. But hopefully they do in the meantime do something to help those who pay them beyond the potted statements every time there are job losses.

How do you prevent the free rider issue?

[rory_20_uk]

On some issues you can't - such as Health and Safety. Others such as pay negotiations would only be available for unions under collective bargaining.

But it is for the Unions to demonstrate value.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How do you prevent the free rider issue?

In a right-to-work you cannot prevent this, save by "guilting" those who benefit freely into joining.

In a closed-shop it is not an issue. Though closed-shops in our past have been part of the reason for the migration to the "Sun Belt."

[Togakure]

How do you prevent the free rider issue?

State of California civil servants must pay a "fair share" fee--significantly less than full membership, but still an expense. In my personal experience this didn't work out so well. When I had major issues I went to the union to see if they could help. They went through the motions but in the end were essentially effectless. I got the "well, you should have joined us." Union administrators and members of course do not view "fair share" payers in the same light--not by a long shot. It was a very frustrating and disappointing experience.

Edit: heh, sorry. I'm grossly out of practice "foruming." Neglected to notice the dates this thread spans. Not quite a necro, but long past relevancy.