Replying to a message of Bob Klahn to Bob Ackley:

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 The unions could have their law repealed - and watch the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

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

 BK> More in the short run while the
 BK>  company undermines the union, then less as the unions fade and
 BK>  companies reduce pay scales. You can see it happening now, with
 BK>  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>  ...

 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.

 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.

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

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

 BK>  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.

 BK>  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.

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

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

 BK> How about 
 BK> this, even simpler than your solution. When the union gets  enough
 BK> cards signed, the company has the election schedualed as  near
 BK> immediately as possible. The company says nothing about it.  That way
 BK> 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.

 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.

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

Were I an employer I would make my opinions/feelings about unions known,
but would otherwise not comment at all on any organizing efforts.  If the
union was successful in organizing my company I'd call a meeting of all
employees, explain that I thought I'd been treating them well and was 
disappointed that they felt that I was not and that a union was necessary.
Because the employees feel that I am not treating them well I would have no
choice but to close down the business immediately with employees to be paid
their full salary/wages through end of the current month.  All employees would
then paid a reasonable and maybe even generous severance.  If anyone has a

--- FleetStreet 1.19+