Unions

[Anonymous]

What's the deal with unions--is it true that under Obama, everyone at a unionized company would be forced to join the union even against personal choice? I know that in the county I live in , teachers who choose not to join the teacher's union are forced to pay a fee to the union. This is heavy-handed and undemocratic. This is an issue that has largely been ignored bec. of the financial crisis, but it's definitely not a direction I want this country to go towards.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What's the deal with unions--is it true that under Obama, everyone at a unionized company would be forced to join the union even against personal choice? I know that in the county I live in , teachers who choose not to join the teacher's union are forced to pay a fee to the union. This is heavy-handed and undemocratic. This is an issue that has largely been ignored bec. of the financial crisis, but it's definitely not a direction I want this country to go towards.

People will not be forced to join unions under Obama. Frequently, non-union members must pay union fees because they are receiving benefits negotiated by the union.

[Anonymous]

I belonged to a union, not because it was my choice, but because I would have to pay dues and not have benefits. I hated being part of a union, mostly because all the fucktards that should have been fired, weren't.

[Anonymous]

I hope unions get stronger. How else can the rest of us negotiate against the "masters of the universe?"

[Anonymous]

Why do you hope unions get stronger? I work very closely with union operations and agree completely with PP - dead wood does NOT get fired, and not for lack of trying. They herald mediocrity...the benefit to the union is remaining in the same position for as long as you can as with this you build your seniority and with seniority comes benefits. In theory, unions are brilliant concepts, in practice, not in the least...

In addition - many forget that the Business Leaders are not "championing the rights of the underdog", but RUNNING A BUSINESS! The more members they sign up, the bigger their coffers... this is no differnet than "business america"...don't get me started. Pension / Legal / Health continue to grow on a business p&l while revenues decline, the "break even" is coming very quickly and when a business is no longer profitable, it shuts down...than hundreds out of a job...hmmm...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you hope unions get stronger? I work very closely with union operations and agree completely with PP - dead wood does NOT get fired, and not for lack of trying. They herald mediocrity...the benefit to the union is remaining in the same position for as long as you can as with this you build your seniority and with seniority comes benefits. In theory, unions are brilliant concepts, in practice, not in the least...

In addition - many forget that the Business Leaders are not "championing the rights of the underdog", but RUNNING A BUSINESS! The more members they sign up, the bigger their coffers... this is no differnet than "business america"...don't get me started. Pension / Legal / Health continue to grow on a business p&l while revenues decline, the "break even" is coming very quickly and when a business is no longer profitable, it shuts down...than hundreds out of a job...hmmm...

Very good point , pp. Actually, union benefits to auto workers are one of the main reasons cited for the decline of American automakers. Any other countries as dependent on unions as we are?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote: People will not be forced to join unions under Obama. Frequently, non-union members must pay union fees because they are receiving benefits negotiated by the union.

If you were right I would agree with you. Here is the deal, if you work in a right-to-work state such as Virginia you do not have to join the union to remain employed. If you work in a non-right to work state, such as Maryland, if the union contract has a "union security" clause (and most do) the employer must fire you if you do not join the union. What is not being reported is that Obama wants to repeal the federal law that allows states to have right-to-work laws. So you combine the Employee Free Choice Act and the repeal of right-to-work and then in every state if your employer is unionized you will have to join the union unless you are a manager or above. Notice I did not say supervisor. Why is that? Because there is another piece of legislation called the RESPECT Act that will make most supervisors part of the union. (Currently supervisors are not allowed to join unions because they are considered management of the company and, as you can imagine, it would be hard to serve two masters - the company and the union).

Make no mistake, the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) does not provide free choice. Instead, it removes the requirement of a secret ballot election to determine whether employees wish to form a union and bargain collectively with the employer. Under the EFCA all the union has to do is get a majority of the employees to sign a form stating they wish to be represented by a union. Sounds innocent enough right? Well, a little know fact of labor law is that unions may visit the homes of employees (an employer may not). You are kidding yourself if you don't think that intimidation and harassment are how many authorizations are obtained.

Note the irony - the unions fought tooth and nail (and sometimes lives) to obtain the secret ballot election.

[Anonymous]

So, yes 10:12 - people will be forced to join unions under Obama.

[Anonymous]

question to 13:06

How does a president repeal a law? I know presidents can refuse so sign a law into existence, it is called a veto, but they can't really repeal a law, can they? I thought that was something Congress had to do.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:question to 13:06

How does a president repeal a law? I know presidents can refuse so sign a law into existence, it is called a veto, but they can't really repeal a law, can they? I thought that was something Congress had to do.

Yes, not to mention that repealing a federal law does not automatically change state laws. It appears that the Republicans are relying on people not even understanding the basics of our political/legal systems at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:question to 13:06

How does a president repeal a law? I know presidents can refuse so sign a law into existence, it is called a veto, but they can't really repeal a law, can they? I thought that was something Congress had to do.

Yes, only the Congress would have the power to repeal a law. The point was that Senator Obama and our legislators who are supported by the unions want this change to our nation's labor laws.

jsteele wrote:
Yes, not to mention that repealing a federal law does not automatically change state laws. It appears that the Republicans are relying on people not even understanding the basics of our political/legal systems at this point.

Actually it does. Under our constitution Congress has the full power to regulate commerce - also know as the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has ruled that our national labor laws are part of this "Commerce Clause." Thus, when Congress makes a law about labor relations, the States must follow it. To be technical, this is called "preemption." Federal labor law preempts state labor laws. For example, no State could pass a law that would take away the power of a union to strike because Congress has explicitly created a law that allows the right to strike. So, if Congress were to repeal the law that allows states to decide whether to be a right-to-work state, then no States could have right to work laws.

Look, let's be clear: #1 I am a Democrat. #2 Unions have done a tremendous service for all working Americans. However, many have lost their way and now are often worse than the company's whose employees they represent.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So, if Congress were to repeal the law that allows states to decide whether to be a right-to-work state, then no States could have right to work laws.

Wouldn't it be the case that if Congress repealed the law (something unlikely to happen given the make up of Congress), there would be no federal law? In the absence of a Federal law, state law would prevail.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Wouldn't it be the case that if Congress repealed the law (something unlikely to happen given the make up of Congress), there would be no federal law?

Under the current makeup of Congress it is unlikely, just like the EFCA passed the house but not the Senate, because the Republican Senators were able to filibuster. If the Democrats win a few more seats as predicated they will be able to overcome any such filibuster. So the honest answer is not likely now but very likely come next year.

jsteele wrote:In the absence of a Federal law, state law would prevail.

That is a common sense answer but that is not the way it works. Under labor laws, the States can only enact their own labor laws if Congress has given them explicit authority to act. The Supreme Court makes this very clear in a number of cases. Thus, the States cannot have right-to-work laws UNLESS Congress has given them explicit authority to have them.

Are you starting to get the idea that just maybe I do this every day, for a living?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Under the current makeup of Congress it is unlikely, just like the EFCA passed the house but not the Senate, because the Republican Senators were able to filibuster. If the Democrats win a few more seats as predicated they will be able to overcome any such filibuster. So the honest answer is not likely now but very likely come next year.

I disagree that it is very likely next year. Almost any Democratic gains will be in "right to work" states such as VA, NC, TN, and GA. Unless right to work laws are extremely unpopular in those states (in which case, who are we to complain that Senators honestly represent their constituents?), the new Senators won't risk their seats by supporting unpopular legislation.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:In the absence of a Federal law, state law would prevail.

That is a common sense answer but that is not the way it works. Under labor laws, the States can only enact their own labor laws if Congress has given them explicit authority to act. The Supreme Court makes this very clear in a number of cases. Thus, the States cannot have right-to-work laws UNLESS Congress has given them explicit authority to have them.

Are you starting to get the idea that just maybe I do this every day, for a living?

Again, however, there is no underlying law saying you have to join a union. The absence of a right to work law does not immediately lead to a situation in which all employees are forced to join unions.

The OP's original question was whether "under Obama, everyone at a unionized company would be forced to join the union even against personal choice?" Are you suggesting that the answer is anything other than "no"?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I disagree that it is very likely next year.

Next year, next two years who knows? I do know this, unions have spent over $400 million on this election and I am sure it is not because they are just nice guys. They want results and they want it fast, so one year is not out of the question.

jsteele wrote:Almost any Democratic gains will be in "right to work" states such as VA, NC, TN, and GA. Unless right to work laws are extremely unpopular in those states (in which case, who are we to complain that Senators honestly represent their constituents?), the new Senators won't risk their seats by supporting unpopular legislation.

Of course they will. Guess what happens to freshmen Senators who don't vote as commanded by their majority leader - committee hell. Power in the Senate is what Jimmy Breslin called "smoke and mirrors" and a large part of your power comes from what committee you sit on. Get relegated to a committee with relatively little authority and you will find yourself unable to make the deals that help your home state - good luck on that re-election thing. Now, 5-6 years later how is your opponent going to really be able to make any headway against you with this issue if you voted to repeal this law? It is not a "sexy" issue that grabs the attention like the war, terrorism, taxes, abortion and the economy.