Union

Hellllllo Nurse, BSN, RN · Apr 19, 2005

Listen, I don't particularly like what the current administration is doing with my hard earned tax money. YET, a majority of the American people voted for this administration and I am thereby required, coerced, against my will to live with it's policies until the next election. Such is the reality of a union. At some point in that hospital's history, A MAJORITY of nurses voted union yes. If you want to work at that hospital you have to abide by the rules voted on by a majority of those nurses. I don't understand how or why that practice is so offensive to you as it represents the core of how this country works.

AMEN! :yelclap: :yeahthat: :cheers:

menetopali · Apr 19, 2005

bluesky,

read, or reread, my posts. i do not find it offensive that in some facilities nurses have chosen to form a union. nor do i find it offensive that if you choose to work in a facility that has a union (provided you are told up front about it) you are agreeing to pay that union for the privaledge of working there. what i find offensive is being forced to pay a union to be allowed to work in any facility, as is the case in nyc for teachers and according to mmeow's posts is the case in Canada, and having a union claim to represent me and my interests when they do not. there is a difference.

as for unions being similar to government, i hold that the analogy is flawed when compared to representative governments. unions, according to other poster's statements, are supposed to speak with "one voice". government in contrast is a forum for disparate voices to find ways to communicate with each other. the role of unions is, according to most supporters i've spoken with, is to advance the cause of their membership. in contrast the role of government is to protect the rights of the individual from infringement by others so that the individual is free to advance. unions negotiate with private entities to reach a contractual agreement for provision of services of its membership at an advantage compared to either non-members or previosly established contracts. government in contrast legislates, reviews, and enforces laws that are in place to maintain civil coexistance, not to advantage or disadvantage any individual or party. it is not a government function to speak with one voice, advance the causes of its citizenry, or to negotiate with private entities. these are all variously stated union goals. the functions of unions do not include bringing disparate opinions together for open communication, protection of one individual's rights from encroachment by another's actions, or to ensure civil coexistence. these are broad government functions.

i am not so naive as to believe that the role government does play and the role it should play are one and the same. i do however believe that as an active citizen i can speak out against the excesses of my government while still being able to work. i also believe that through my actions at the polls i can effect change in how government runs by choosing from one of at least two candidates (even when none are particuraly good) on a regular and pre-determined schedule with generally transparent rules and results. i believe my government is restricted in its actions by the Constitution that requires a super-majority of 3/4 of the states to be changed and is interperted by an independant judiciary. this is significantly different than being controlled by the whim of the majority.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Hellllllo Nurse, BSN, RN · Apr 19, 2005

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

That pretty much sums up how I feel about having to pay taxes while Bush is in office.

menetopali · Apr 19, 2005

that's the way i feel about taxes whatever individual is in office. it is not the role of government to propagate opinions, redistribute wealth, or to provide for its citizens. the role of government is to protect the rights of the individual from others. any money collected in excess of the need to protect the individual's rights is stealing by the government in power (regardless of its leader's intentions or political persuasion). JMHO

another TJ quote for thought...

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson (1781)

and

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

Sheri257 · Apr 19, 2005

in the case of government individuals enter into a social contract to accept the outcome of the election and, in free societies, are permitted leave the juristiction of that government and seek a life elsewhere if they choose and another country will take them. in the case of the federated representative republic with separation of powers, as in the United States, the actions of the government are subject to independent review by the judiciary. the judicial, executive, and legislative branchs are limited in their respective power, which has the effect of diffusing power away from any one individual. if i disagree with the action that government takes, i have recourse through the judiciary, contacting, my legislators, and to a significantly lesser extent contacting the executive branch. as a union is a private entity, not a governmental one subject to oversight, it should not be given governmental powers or standing. IMHO

Actually, unions are subject to review by other branches of government. Many labor laws have been changed by Congress ... such as allowing companies to hire replacement workers during strikes. And union elections have been thrown out by the National Labor Relations Board, which is appointed by the president. When some RN's contested CNA's victory at Cedars Sinai hospital in California, they convinced the NLRB to overturn the election.

So I'm not sure where you get this idea that unions are not subject to government oversight. They are.

:rolleyes:

menetopali · Apr 19, 2005

Actually, unions are subject to review by other branches of government. Many labor laws have been changed by Congress ... such as allowing companies to hire replacement workers during strikes. And union elections have been thrown out by the National Labor Relations Board, which is appointed by the president. When some RN's contested CNA's victory at Cedars Sinai hospital in California, they convinced the NLRB to overturn the election.
So I'm not sure where you get this idea that unions are not subject to government oversight. They are.

in brief, i get this idea from my knowledge of U.S. history & government.

unions are not subject to review by "other parts of government" because they are not part of government. the labor laws to which you refer all come from the role of the federal government (specifically Congress) in interstate commerce, enumerated in section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. this role is regulatory, and its enforcement is through the executive branch who appoints the NLRB.

the changing of labor laws to permit hiring of non-union workers is hardly a cause for celebration for those who disagree with unions, it was Congress that passed the Clayton Act (1914) that removed the anti-trust restrictions of the Sherman Act (1890) as they applied to organized labor and allowed unions to interfere with free trade in the first place. Congress then made it even worse for the American economy and people who don't want to subject themselves to unions with the Wagner Act (1935) and the NLRB under FDR by regulating the practice of business to the advantage of unions, including the creation or legitimizing of restrictive hiring practices (union shops and closed shops). all Congress did with Taft-Hartley (1947) was stop closed shop exclusivity (but permitted union-shops to continue if state law didn't prohibit it), permit the President to end strikes that were harmful to the country, and force unions to stop so-called sympathy actions. Neither Taft-Hartley nor any action by NLRB has ever brought back the anti-trust protections for individuals against unions that existed under the Sherman Act.

the enforcement of law is not "oversight". Congress has oversight of governmental entities, notably those in the executive branch as it holds bugetary control and is specifically granted powers in the U.S. Constitution that require the ability to obtain information from the executive branch. the executive branch enforces law and has no "oversight" of private entities. the NLRB exists to serve two functions (according to its website) first to conduct and ensure fairness of elections and second to address unfair (according to Congress) labor practices by unions or employers. Unfortunately some states still permit union-shops, that is some states permit unions to force employers into requiring the joining of a union as a condition of employment.

as for me, i still want no part of a union and will continue the fight agaisnt coercive payments to any third party, against dependence on unions to speak for me, and against their claim to speak for me.

Dependence leads to subservience. - Thomas Jefferson

Sheri257 · Apr 20, 2005

I guess we could quibble over semantics but ...

The fact of the matter is: The Cedars Sinai RN's were able to appeal to the NLRB which, originally ruled in favor of the union, and eventually convinced the NLRB to overturn the election. (Of course, the fact that the NLRB is was subsequently taken over by Bush appointees didn't hurt either.)

That's hardly a situation where there aren't any governmental remedies for union opponents. The union actually won that election yet, the opponents prevailed through a government agency.

Call it what you want ... enforcement or whatever ... but there is, in fact, recourse in those type of situations. As the Cedars Sinai case demonstrates, the union is not some all powerful monopoly that always gets their way once they win an election.

:coollook:

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Apr 20, 2005

Please focus on merits of a thread topic and respectful of opinions.

menetopali · Apr 20, 2005

no, unions are not all powerful monopolies, but neither are the employers that unions fight against. both sides are subject to their respective laws and regulations. i was pointing out that unions are not governmental entities and should not be given governmental powers (i.e. the power to tax). unions do hold a special bargaining position because of union-sympathetic labor laws that treat organized labor as a permitted trust, while generally disallowing such trusts in industry. this has the effect of bolstering the union's negotiating position and, in some states and apparently Canada, allowing unions to negotiate union membership or charging of dues/fees as a condition of employment for a given employer.

you are probably correct that a shift in NLRB control is why, after a party change in executive branch control, they overturned the policy of the previous NLRB incarnation. not being familiar with the particulars of the case you cite, i cannot speak to specific merits or demerits of that case. more broadly, republicans have historically acted to benefit of industry and democrats have historically acted to benefit unions. neither is altruistic in their position as they take significant amounts of money from each respectively.

i personally think anti-trust acts are good for the economy and good for society. i simply think that they should be applied to all equally. both industry and labor should be bound by the same laws.

i also have a strong belief in the freedom of association and that individuals have every right to join a union if they choose. to believe in freedom of association also means a freedom from association, or freedom not to join a union or pay union fees/dues. it is this latter point that seems to stir up controversy.

i've said it before and will say it again...

join a union if you wish, just don't force me to join. work in a union shop if you wish, just don't force me to work there (or fail to disclose that it is a union shop during hiring). negogiate with employers for pay/benefit packages for union members, but don't negoiate for me without my consent. represent union members in political fights, but don't claim to represent me.

A man's liberties are none the less aggressed upon because those who coerce him do so in the belief that he will be benefited. - Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), Social Statics, 1850

Sheri257 · Apr 20, 2005

i was pointing out that unions are not governmental entities and should not be given governmental powers (i.e. the power to tax). unions do hold a special bargaining position because of union-sympathetic labor laws that treat organized labor as a permitted trust, while generally disallowing such trusts in industry. this has the effect of bolstering the union's negotiating position and, in some states and apparently Canada, allowing unions to negotiate union membership or charging of dues/fees as a condition of employment for a given employer.

I see your point about governmental powers. But I'm not really sure from a practical standpoint how "sympathetic" the labor laws are. Afterall, union membership has declined steadily in this country for decades.

If the laws were really sympathetic towards unions, you'd think union membership would be up, not down.

And, with the current system, it's more difficult for a union to go in and win a majority of votes. If they were allowed to represent workers without a majority vote (as we previously discussed), it could conceivably make it easier for unions to penetrate facilities.

As I previously stated, I'm willing to entertain alternatives. But I'm not sure how practical those alternatives are or, if business has even proposed such changes in labor laws. They might like the current system as it is since, it's pretty difficult for a union to get into facility in the first place.

:coollook:

menetopali · Apr 20, 2005

I am interested in hearing how unions work. I have heard many different opinions about them and would like to know the pro's and cons. Also how did your union get started? There has been a lot of talk down south about starting a union but everyone is afraid of the backlash from the upper management and also most nurses don't know what a union can do for them and what the pro's and cons are. Would any of you work/not work in a union if you had to choose. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

back to the original post...

in an objective way i'll try to describe how they work and their pros and cons. i'm sure sombody will 'correct' any observations with which they disagree.

unions operate by grouping a large number of employees together to negoiate en masse with a given employer. the theory being that if all members of a class negotiate as a single entity they can negogiate a better contract with a given employer by threatening the ability of that employer to maintain a positive business model.

to be effective, unions require a significant percentage of the class involved. if the union only actually speaks for a small number of the class, they have a very weak negotiating position. i believe this is one reason unions profess to speak for all members of a class reguardless of membership status (i.e American RNs say...' or 'New York Teachers believe...' are statements that reflect the beliefs of some, but not all of a class presented by unions as representative of all class members). strong unions can negotiate many things as part of a contract. they can require all in a class to join a union or pay fees/dues to the union (which further strengthens the union's negotiating position and is often cited as 'fair', 'right' or an otherwise positive thing by those who support unions; their argument boils down to, 'everyone benefits from union action, so everyone should pay'). they can negoiate higher pay and more benefits. they can also affect policy through political action. weak unions have a much more difficult time negotiationg and will group a broader base or link to another union to better their position.

employers dislike unions because of the power that unions hold over their business model and the fact that they are required by law to negogiate with unions. often it costs employers significant amounts of money to come to a contract agreement, protects those who employers believe should be fired (or makes it so difficult as to be cheaper to pay for substandard employees than to pay for the cost of firing), and makes every business decision more complicated and difficult. employers also dislike unions because once a union takes hold it is difficult to dislodge it.

unions grew out of the guild system of the middle ages and have been present for the entirety of American history. the modern organized labor movement started in the mid to late 19th century as industrial working conditions deteriorated and industry consolidated into the hands of a few oligarchs. a new socialist view of the world was emmerging and workers began to organize themselves to fight management 'for the benefit of all' or 'to get their fair share of prosperity'. union and industry actions were often violent as union members would destroy property and assault replacement workers and non-union workers who did not strike while industry hired private armed men to assault and sometimes kill union members to 'break strikes'. after a century of organized labor (i can review the interveneing years if asked), the adversarial model of union/industry negotiations has not changed. many view it as a 'war' to be won where success of the union includes injuring or destroying the industry, if industry does not accept the union position.

in modernity unions form in one of two ways. first a group of employees decides that they are either being mistreated or that they deserve more from their employer than they are getting and organize themselves (often reaching out to already formed unions for advice and support). the second way that unions form is that a representative from an already formed union enters the work place and initiates a drive to form a union within that company. this latter technique is illegal in some places and employers will use the means available to them to prevent it, so it is done serruptitiously. union supporters deny this latter method and union opponents claim it happens all the time.

positive historical contributions of unions include:

shorter work week

increased pay/benefits for employees

safer working conditions

protection of employees from 'arbitrary actions' of employers

the creation of 'labor day'

lobbying for government programs like unemployment and disability

negative historical contributuions of unions include:

increasing the cost of goods and services

driving unskilled/semi-skilled manafacturing overseas (to lower cost labor)

often alleged, and occasionally demonstrated, links to organized crime

politcal actions that generally support one party over another

protection of employees from appropriate disiplinary action

prevents new technology from being used to full potential

lobbying for government programs like unemployment and disability

i think this is a fair, though not exhaustive, review of pros and cons of unions and how they generally work (though the details can vary widely). my opinion of unions has been posted in this thread already so i won't repeat it here.

menetopali · Apr 20, 2005

I see your point about governmental powers. But I'm not really sure from a practical standpoint how "sympathetic" the labor laws are. Afterall, union membership has declined steadily in this country for decades.
If the laws were really sympathetic towards unions, you'd think union membership would be up, not down.
And, with the current system, it's more difficult for a union to go in and win a majority of votes. If they were allowed to represent workers without a majority vote (as we previously discussed), it could conceivably make it easier for unions to penetrate facilities.
As I previously stated, I'm willing to entertain alternatives. But I'm not sure how practical those alternatives are or, if business has even proposed such changes in labor laws. They might like the current system as it is since, it's pretty difficult for a union to get into facility in the first place.

the synpathetic laws to which i was reffering were put in place between the Clayton Act (1914) and the firing of ATCs by Reagan in 1981 under the Taft-Hartley Act (1947). the decline in unions is not because of sympathetic labor laws, it is because of the slow rollback of those laws and a shift in how they are interperted. business has not, to my knowledge, ever entertained changing their adversarial stance on unions. similarly, unions, to my knowledge, have not entertained the idea of changing their adversarial stance on industry. that leaves a schism that neither party is willing to try to bridge and those who don't agree with the stance of either side are stuck drifting in the middle.