...

 BK>>  You mean like not firing a current worker to hire your buddy
 BK>>  into the job?

 BK>>  If pay scales are identical, then it may cost 10% more.
 BK>>  Payscales are typically not identical.

 BA>>> management can't do that because by law they have to pay
 BA>>> workers in the same job with the same seniority at the same
 BA>>> rate - a union-sponsored law, BTW.  Of course, in that same
 BA>>> mixed shop if the union negotiates a pay hike or a raise in
 BA>>> benefits those same non-union workers get it too; unions
 BA>>> call that free-riding, I say it's their law, the unions got

 BK>>  It is both, the law and free-riding.

 BA>>> it passed and they can get it repealed instead of trying to
 BA>>> extort money from non-members.  Of course, if the labor

 BK>>  Non-members get paid more because of the union and you call dues
 BK>> extorting money from non-members?

 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.

 Which happens to be true.

 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
 BA> non-members alike.  Then those non-members *wouldn't* get
 BA> whatever pay and benefits the union extorts from the
 BA> company for its members - of course those non- members
 BA> would probably be making more than union scale, but that's
 BA> another subject.

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

 Now, tell us, how does a union extort anything in a state where
 they can't even get all the employees to join? The employer
 simply makes a business decision not to give the union what they
 ask for. No extortion possible.

 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 unions get their law repealed then in fairly short order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  the
 BK>> benefits.

 BA> Hardly.

 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.

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

 BA> Yes, there are sweatshops, even in the IT business, First
 BA> Data Resources in Omaha is one big one - and their employee
 ...
 BA> Alegent Health is another of my favorites, in the 15 months

 Yep, and they are much more common without unions.

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

... Sign at the edge of the Universe:   Staff only, beyond this point.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a