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) One of the bargaining chips was the very issue you mention (Union members being laid off first), but I don't know how that particular issue finalised (though I was aware of what the CWA was asking for - preferential treatment for union members basically). xponent IBEW 716 Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
