Missouri Voters Overturn Right-To-Work Measure

[Benton]

(08-09-2018, 11:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: So then she filed a retaliatory complaint under section 24.103? She also filed a claim against their workers compensation I am guessing as well.

No idea. We talked about it a couple times, but I'm not in HR. And I only know about the OSHA thing because when they did away with her position she said that it probably had to do with "calling OSHA on their cheap asses."

I don't think the complaint ever went any further than when I filed a DOL complaint on them because they weren't paying my employees overtime. 

(08-09-2018, 11:09 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Seriously?  What a bunch of dumbasses.

Mostly young guys sitting in an office looking at spreadsheets.

(08-09-2018, 11:10 AM)Au165 Wrote: Their workers comp insurance went up more than that I'm sure after the lady broke her wrist.

Just to clarify, the wrist wasn't broken. She did have it x-rayed. 

And I think (Matt could probably weigh in here) that workers comp insurance is a tax deduction, so that's not a big deal.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2018, 11:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The employer has to agree to that contract in the first place. The government doesn't give anything to the union in this scenario or have any power.

Right to work laws bar employers from having these contracts with the unions. That's government interference in business.

In states where these laws do not exist, the government cannot bar employers from willfully agreeing to these contracts with other non government entities.

Oh well I have no problem if the employer agrees so I just misunderstood how these things work.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2018, 11:26 AM)Benton Wrote: No idea. We talked about it a couple times, but I'm not in HR. And I only know about the OSHA thing because when they did away with her position she said that it probably had to do with "calling OSHA on their cheap asses."

I don't think the complaint ever went any further than when I filed a DOL complaint on them because they weren't paying my employees overtime. 


Mostly young guys sitting in an office looking at spreadsheets.


Just to clarify, the wrist wasn't broken. She did have it x-rayed. 

And I think (Matt could probably weigh in here) that workers comp insurance is a tax deduction, so that's not a big deal.

Even if nothing happened to anyone, and they saved the whole $120 per month, I'm still calling it ridiculous and petty.

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2018, 11:27 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh well I have no problem if the employer agrees so I just misunderstood how these things work.

I'm thinking you and Pat may be discussing 2 different scenarios. It seems like you are asking can workers unionize without the employer agreeing to it and I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes. The employer cannot stop employees from unionizing.

The rub "right to work" comes from does the employee have the right to work without paying into the union and the answer to that is no.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2018, 10:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Right so my question is if the employer agrees to withhold dues for those in the union, but  does not mandate that people have to pay dues, does that mean the person doesn't have to pay dues?  If so I don't understand the need for right to work laws.

Pat already covered this pretty well. Right-to-work laws really are nothing more than lobbyists for industries/corporations pushing to make it impossible for unions to work that into an agreement, which effectively kills unions. Their intention is to reduce the revenue of the unions to decrease their power, thus increasing the power of the corporations they are often at odds with.

When you start looking at where the laws come from, you come to understand the reasoning behind them. It's all about corporations over people.

(08-09-2018, 10:38 AM)Au165 Wrote: I struggle with people who say if you don't like unions and don't want to pay the dues the free market allows you to go work somewhere else, while also ignoring that the free market also allows workers who don't like their pay or working conditions to go work somewhere else.

I struggle with people that do the reverse, which is really what I have been getting at in my posts. It is the free market in both situations, or it is how the free market should work in principal. However, this is a market failure. Market failures are where government intervention is required.

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2018, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm thinking you and Pat may be discussing 2 different scenarios. It seems like you are asking can workers unionize without the employer agreeing to it and I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes. The employer cannot stop employees from unionizing.

The rub "right to work" comes from does the employee have the right to work without paying into the union and the answer to that is no.  

Workers can unionize without employer permission, but they can't turn the business into a union shop and require dues from employees without the employer's permission.

[Dill]

(08-08-2018, 08:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sucks having to pay the man for the right to work 

Higher wages, protection from unfair termination, and health/pension benefits do not compensate for loss of "freedom."

[Dill]

(08-09-2018, 10:39 AM)Benton Wrote: Businesses often don't care about safety, they care about profit. There's nothing wrong or evil in that.

LOL yes there is.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2018, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm thinking you and Pat may be discussing 2 different scenarios. It seems like you are asking can workers unionize without the employer agreeing to it and I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes. The employer cannot stop employees from unionizing.

The rub "right to work" comes from does the employee have the right to work without paying into the union and the answer to that is no.  

No he got what I was asking.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2018, 01:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No he got what I was asking.  

Okey Doke; it was I who was confused. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2018, 01:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Higher wages, protection from unfair termination, and health/pension benefits do not compensate for loss of "freedom."

They sure don't; of course your reply doesn't address what I said. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2018, 01:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Workers can unionize without employer permission, but they can't turn the business into a union shop and require dues from employees without the employer's permission.

As I said; my experience with private sector unions is limited to early years and classroom instruction. Maybe I'll rewatch Nancy Rae

What motivation does an employer have to require folks to pay union dues if not compelled to do so? 

[Dill]

(08-08-2018, 09:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No it’s allowing a third party to dictate rules of employment. If the employer wants to allow it or it gets negotiated during bargaining that’s one thing, but to say the employee has to pay dues regardless of whether the employee wants it or the employer wants to mandate  it is not free market.  If this is hurting unions then the free market would say adapt or go away. Convince or negotiate with the employer to make it mandatory. I have no issue with that.  So if the employer is on board then I don’t think right to work laws should cover them.

What if an employer has only two employees, and they agree to form a union. Would that union be a 3rd party? Would one worker who speaks for the two be a 3rd party in that representative role?

Seems to me that all employees already have a certain power to "dictate" rules of employment when they will not work for less than a certain amount. If an employer cannot find bricklayers who will work for 10 dollars an hour, then those potential employees are dictating terms of employment.  

The union just enhances this already existing power of labor, creating benefits that spill over to non union workers as well, like the 40 hr week. Where wages sink so low as to affect a worker's ability to provide food and shelter for him/herself and family, and the worker has only the "right" to quit and accept another equally low paying job with another employer, unions "make sense" to workers.

"Right to work" laws were not designed to enhance employee freedom, but to restrict it by keeping as much control over wages and hiring/firing in the hands of the employer.

[Dill]

(08-09-2018, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They sure don't; of course your reply doesn't address what I said. 

Thought you said: "Sucks having to pay the man for the right to work."

[Au165]

(08-09-2018, 01:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I struggle with people that do the reverse, which is really what I have been getting at in my posts. It is the free market in both situations, or it is how the free market should work in principal. However, this is a market failure. Market failures are where government intervention is required.

To me the union itself, by its existence, creates a market failure. Collectively bargaining pay and such that is indiscriminate of the workers actual performance (think pay increase based on years) artificially manipulates the supply and demand model. You demand "high performing employees" however you are provided with a supply of workers who's performance does not actually dictate their value. In this case you don't allow the market to set the value of these employees but rather a collective bargaining agreement has forced you into paying this specific labor force a set rate.

I will never support the idea of paying a large group of people a set pay schedule with no relation to their performance. That is one of the reasons I actually have such an issue with unions. Teacher unions are a good eacmple, there are really good teachers and there are really bad teachers if they both work the same amount of years and have the same level of education you are stuck paying them the same. I feel like good teachers do deserve to be paid more, but it's hard to justify when you know the bad ones will get paid the exact same.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2018, 01:56 PM)Dill Wrote: What if an employer has only two employees, and they agree to form a union. Would that union be a 3rd party? Would one worker who speaks for the two be a 3rd party in that representative role?

Seems to me that all employees already have a certain power to "dictate" rules of employment when they will not work for less than a certain amount. If an employer cannot find bricklayers who will work for 10 dollars an hour, then those potential employees are dictating terms of employment.  

The union just enhances this already existing power of labor, creating benefits that spill over to non union workers as well, like the 40 hr week. Where wages sink so low as to affect a worker's ability to provide food and shelter for him/herself and family, and the worker has only the "right" to quit and accept another equally low paying job with another employer, unions "make sense" to workers.

"Right to work" laws were not designed to enhance employee freedom, but to restrict it by keeping as much control over wages and hiring/firing in the hands of the employer.

2 no. 3 yes.I had my question answered.  Good news!  I'm on your side!

[GMDino]

(08-09-2018, 01:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Thought you said: "Sucks having to pay the man for the right to work."

Well it's YOUR fault for not answering the question that wasn't in the post you responded too!!1!!11!!! 

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2018, 01:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: To me the union itself, by its existence, creates a market failure. Collectively bargaining pay and such that is indiscriminate of the workers actual performance (think pay increase based on years) artificially manipulates the supply and demand model. You demand "high performing employees" however you are provided with a supply of workers who's performance does not actually dictate their value. In this case you don't allow the market to set the value of these employees but rather a collective bargaining agreement has forced you into paying this specific labor force a set rate.

I will never support the idea of paying a large group of people a set pay schedule with no relation to their performance. That is one of the reasons I actually have such an issue with unions. Teacher unions are a good eacmple, there are really good teachers and there are really bad teachers if they both work the same amount of years and have the same level of education you are stuck paying them the same. I feel like good teachers do deserve to be paid more, but it's hard to justify when you know the bad ones will get paid the exact same.

What is interesting is that unions, which I don't disagree about them being a market failure, were created and exist to correct market failures. Free market working unfettered, in theory, provides a safe work environment with living wages for employs that are just compensation for their work. The lack of the free market providing this is what led to the rise of unions in the absence of government involvement.

The second part is irrelevant to the larger union discussion. That is a result of union activity, and it is wrong, but it is a separate issue from the discussion.

[Au165]

(08-09-2018, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What is interesting is that unions, which I don't disagree about them being a market failure, were created and exist to correct market failures. Free market working unfettered, in theory, provides a safe work environment with living wages for employs that are just compensation for their work. The lack of the free market providing this is what led to the rise of unions in the absence of government involvement.

The second part is irrelevant to the larger union discussion. That is a result of union activity, and it is wrong, but it is a separate issue from the discussion.

This is part a much larger theoretical discussion about what is "just" in terms of the free market determining it, and the societal expectations of it. 

I think the second part is relevant, but again that does dive into a much deeper discussion.

[Benton]

(08-09-2018, 01:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: To me the union itself, by its existence, creates a market failure. Collectively bargaining pay and such that is indiscriminate of the workers actual performance (think pay increase based on years) artificially manipulates the supply and demand model. You demand "high performing employees" however you are provided with a supply of workers who's performance does not actually dictate their value. In this case you don't allow the market to set the value of these employees but rather a collective bargaining agreement has forced you into paying this specific labor force a set rate.

I will never support the idea of paying a large group of people a set pay schedule with no relation to their performance. That is one of the reasons I actually have such an issue with unions. Teacher unions are a good eacmple, there are really good teachers and there are really bad teachers if they both work the same amount of years and have the same level of education you are stuck paying them the same. I feel like good teachers do deserve to be paid more, but it's hard to justify when you know the bad ones will get paid the exact same.

The employees help set the value of the employees. And their qualifications. Unions keep employers from bringing in unqualified (and potentially dangerous) unskilled workers.

And teacher unions are public sector, which is different. But even then, in relation to what you’re talking about, pay scales are largely dictated by boards of education and tax base, not unions. Teacher unions advocate for working conditions, resources and yes sometimes pay increases.