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 The unions could have their law repealed - and watch the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.

 Yes, they can settle for less. More in the short run while the
 company undermines the union, then less as the unions fade and
 companies reduce pay scales. You can see it happening now, with
 the reduced strength of unions.

 BA>>> If the unions were honest about it - and few are
 BA>>> - they'd repeal their law that requires employers in mixed
 BA>>> shops to give the same pay and benefits to members and

 ...

 BK>>  IOW, the employers would get to pay more to those who don't
 BK>>  carry the burden of the efforts to get them that pay. Same deal,
 BK>> only worse.

 BA> You are assuming that only union workers are doing the
 BA> 'real' work. I've found the opposite to be true more often
 BA> than not.

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

 Oh, and why would any corporation let union workers get away
 with doing less than non-union workers? They all have the same
 protection. The same requirements.

 BK>>  Now, tell us, how does a union extort anything in a state where
 BK>>  they can't even get all the employees to join?

 BA> They don't.  At least not as far as I know.  But they keep
 BA> trying to get their 'union shop' legislation in the door.

 Yep, good idea too.

 BA> The unions' current project - the misnamed Employee Free
 BA> Choice Act, is intended to keep unions from losing
 BA> representation elections.

 To keep companies from busting the elections.

 BA> Under current law the unions
 BA> have to get a majority of the employees of a company to
 BA> sign cards, which the union then presents to the NLRB, and
 BA> the NLRB schedules a union representation election by
 BA> secret ballot.  The unions use a considerable amount of
 BA> peer pressure if not outright threats to get those cards
 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.

 After a long term of company threats and intimidation. How about
 this, even simpler than your solution. When the union gets
 enough cards signed, the company has the election schedualed as
 near immediately as possible. The company says nothing about it.
 That way you will find out if the workers really don't want a
 union.

 BA> The unions' new legislation pretends that because most of
 BA> the employees have signed the cards an election isn't
 BA> necessary.  They claim that because those employees signed
 BA> the cards they *want* union representation; demonstrably
 BA> not true because the unions lose many if not most of those
 BA> elections.  Many if not most of those employees signed the
 BA> cards to get the union people off their backs.

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



 BK>> The employer
 BK>>  simply makes a business decision not to give the union what they  ask
 BK>> for. No extortion possible.

 BA> Or in the public sector the officials cave in and give the
 BA> unions what they want.
 BA> The majority of union members are, after all, in the public
 BA> sector now.

 BA>>>>> unions get their law repealed then in fairly short order
 BA>>>>> employers will be paying their non-union help up to 10%
 BA>>>>> above union scale to keep them non-union.

 BK>>>>  Union members make all the sacrifices and non-union workers reap
 BK>>>> the benefits.

 BA>>> Hardly.

 BK>>  Quite true.

 BK>>>>  Now, do you really believe employers will pay as much as they
 BK>>>>  do, provide medical care and vacations and even coffee breaks,
 BK>>>>  if they didn't have to compete with union shops?

 BA>>> Employers will provide sufficient pay and benefits to get
 BA>>> the employees they need.  If they don't they won't get or
 BA>>> keep those employees.

 BK>>  If that were valid there never would have been unions in the
 BK>>  first place. And even with unions that is no less true. Without
 BK>>  unions employers don't have to pay as much simply because all
 BK>>  employers race to the bottom. They only pay more when they have
 BK>>  to compete for workers, and that's only when someone else pays
 BK>>  more.

 BA> Of course, most of the abuses that the unions were formed
 BA> to fight are now illegal and the employees have the
 BA> government to fight for them.  Unions aren't necessary.

 BA> --- FleetStreet 1.19+

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

... Washington D.C.; beneath the phony crap, there's real crap.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a