----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 9:31 PM Subject: Re: Open-Shop, Closed-ShopRe: What are the real rules? and a bit on unions
> Dan Minette wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 8:43 AM > > Subject: Open-Shop, Closed-ShopRe: What are the real rules? and a > bit > > on unions > > > > > >> At 11:29 PM 9/17/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >>> If you were to argue that open shop laws hurts workers, then I'd > >>> agree with you. > >> > >> I woudl also argue that closed-shop rules hurt workers, by making > >> them bound to a Union which may or may not represent their > interests > >> and violates their freedom of association. > > > > They can always work elsewhere, that's what people who oppose their > > work contributing to campaign contributions of the owners are told. > > > > > >> I work in an open shop, and under a legal prohibition against > >> striking, and our union has managed to negotiate some of the most > >> favorable benefits in the federal government. > > > > Federal employees are in a very unique situation. They can > influence > > the people in charge of the entity they work for in a way that no > > other employees can. This has a lot to do with Federal employees > > being the only area for union growth now..., bucking the trend of > > unions dropping from about a third to about an eight of the > workforce. > > > > If you look at the history of the labor unions, you will see that > > nothing was gained in private industry just by an open shop union > > asking pretty please. Rather, unions were able to negotiate good > > wages when they had the ability to adversely affect the > profitability > > of their employers if they refused. Strikes have long been the tool > > used to do this. > > > > Lets look at an open shop with a strike. A union, which represents > > 60% of the employees goes on strike. The other 40%, who are not in > > the union, aren't part of the strike...pretty well by definition. > If > > the strike is successful, they are in a win-win situation...they get > > the wages and benefits won by the strike and they kept on working. > > > > If the strike fails, they are no worse off than before, and are > > considered more reliable workers by the management than the > > troublesome union workers. Thus, the union workers will be the first > > to be laid off...in an open shop/right to work state, if the > > management understands enlightened self interest....and most do. > > It is often a little more complicated than that. In the recent CWA > strike, non-union workers tended to honor picket lines. Why? Because > it is their pocketbook being affected too. (At the time of the strike > I had been eating lunch at the CWA local every work day for three > years or so) Do people who refuse to cross picket lines sit at home without income, or do they often find work at other sites until the strike is over? I'd be surprised if a non-union worker would do without pay for weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if they just crossed that site off their list and went elsewhere. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
