On Monday, President Obama was in Michigan and spoke out in opposition to the ridiculous "right to work" laws. Here is some of what he had to say:
And by the way, what we shouldn't do. I've just got to say this, what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. These so-called right to work laws, they don't have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.
You only have to look to Michigan, where workers were instrumental in reviving the auto industry, to see how unions have helped build not just a stronger middle class but a stronger America. [...]
We don't want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top. America's not going to compete based on low skill, low wage, no workers rights. That's not our competitive advantage. There's always going to be some other country that can treat its workers worse.
There is nothing new about this fight for workers, but it is a shame that the same old fight must be fought generation after generation.
I actualy agree with you that "right to work" in the form that just passed in Michigan, and which exists in the South is detrimental to workers, but so is "closed shop" laws such as existed in Michigan and, when I got out of the Navy, in Wisconsin. I was a highly trianed electrician, but I could not get a job as an electrician unless I joined the IBEW. I was perfectly willing to do that, except that the IBEW had a limited membership and would not let me join. Their membership was filled. There were jobs available, but without union membership I could not work, and the IBEW was not accepting new members.
ReplyDeleteFortunately for me, I found a fellow former submarine sailor who was in the IBEW and he finagled me a membership, but it was only because I "knew somebody" that I was able to work, which is actually a corrupt system. The "closed shop" was preventing people from being able to work.
The workable system is one similar to that which we have in Californai. A business can be non-union, or it can be a union business. If the latter then workers can join the union or not. If they do not join they are still included in the collective bargaining agreement and must pay that portion of the union dues which covers the cost of administering that process. Wages in California are similar in proportion to cost of living to those in unionized states.
Wow, Jayhawk, I actually agree with you on this. When I had a graphic design business in San Antonio, TX back in the 1970s I was commissioned to do some art work for a local electrical company but before I could start, I had to join the IBEW union and pay dues. That was part of their contract. Fortunately I was reimbursed the dues by the company so I didn't lose any money for my services. It seemed rather unnecessary to me at the time to have to join their union just to create forms and logos for the electrical company even though I wasn't an employee. I understand the reasons behind the evolution of unions (robber barrons back during the early days of our country) but I never understood the stringent rules concerning the rest of their contracts. There are a lot of people who could be helped by union shops but when the unions became so powerful, they became corrupted and lost a lot of their appeal and their members. Sensible contracts between unions and businesses would help both union members and business. They would then know just what was expected of each. But there is an inherent adversarial nature between the two that I'm not sure can be overcome. I truly believe that workers need some kind of protection from unfair business practices or we will find ourselves back at the turn of the century working in sweat shops. Can't we all just get along?
ReplyDelete