BA>>>>> No.  Unions are attempting to extort money from non-members
 BA>>>>> in many states.  The unions claim that the non-members are
 BA>>>>> getting the benefits of union efforts without having to pay
 BA>>>>> for them.

 BK>>>>  Which happens to be true.

 BA>>> The unions could have their law repealed - and watch the
 BA>>> non-union help not have to settle for union scale any
 BA>>> longer.

 BK>>  Yes, they can settle for less.

 BA> Why should they have to?  Most employers would happily pay
 BA> a premium over union scale to keep a union out of the
 BA> company.

 No, they really wouldn't. They will until the union is no longer
 a threat, then they will work it down to pay the workers a
 little as they can get away with.

 ...

 BK>>  The union workers are the ones who pay the dues, and go on
 BK>>  strike when necessary. That is bearing the burden that gains
 BK>>  those benefits and higher pay.

 BA> So they should repeal their law so they don't have to share
 BA> the benefits of their 'hard work' with those who chose not
 BA> to do it.

 And then the unions are slowly busted and nobody gets those
 benefits.

 ...

 BA>>> signed.  Oddly enough, even though a majority of the
 BA>>> employees sign those cards the unions still *lose* many if
 BA>>> not most of those representation elections.

 BK>>  After a long term of company threats and intimidation.

 BA> 'scuse me.  It is flatly illegal for a company to do that.
 BA> It is *not* illegal for union organizers to do it.

 Yeah, AAMOF it is.

 However, law enforcement on that has been in republican hands
 for all but 8 years from 1981 to 2009.

 ...

 BK>>  And many vote against the union because the company threatens to
 BK>> shut down the shop, or fire them. They prove it by firing any  union
 BK>> organizers they can get away with.

 BA> Which is none of them.  Most union organizers are not
 BA> company employees, they are employed by the union.

 Nope. Most union organizers are inside the company. The unions
 can't hire enough organizers to do the job, the workers won't
 listen to them anyway, and the employer won't let union
 employees in the door without the checkoff cards signed.

 BA> Were I an employer I would make my opinions/feelings about
 BA> unions known, but would otherwise not comment at all on any
 BA> organizing efforts.  If the union was successful in
 BA> organizing my company I'd call a meeting of all employees,
 BA> explain that I thought I'd been treating them well and was
 BA> disappointed that they felt that I was not and that a union
 BA> was necessary.

 Before you do that you should find out why the union is
 necessary. Workers don't form unions for the fun of it. Nobody
 is going to pay union dues if there isn't a reason for it.

 BA> Because the employees feel that I am not
 BA> treating them well I would have no choice but to close down
 BA> the business immediately with employees to be paid their
 BA> full salary/wages through end of the current month.  All

 Right... sure you would. If you really were treating the workers
 well you wouldn't have a union.

 BA> employees would then paid a reasonable and maybe even
 BA> generous severance.  If anyone has a

 I really doubt that. If you thought that way you would have
 already found out why they wanted a union in the first place.

 BA> problem with the situation they should take it up with
 BA> their union stewards. No further comment or discussion on
 BA> the subject would be entertained.

 And that is the attitude that leads to a union in the first
 place. The "no further discussion" attitude is a lead in to my
 way or the highway.

 And would you really shut down maybe a $100 mill factory because
 your employees found a reason to vote in a union? Without even
 trying to find out why?



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Macintosh:  The Etch-A-Sketch you don't have to shake.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a