Is it not time to get public service unions out of politics?

[Guest]

It's a tough one. How can a worker who does not join a union avail themselves of the benefits of collective bargaining?

I much prefer not being in a union, as I do a lot better from being paid based on merit, but when I was in the BCGEU, regardless of what I thought of their spending habits with my dues, I don't see how I could have not been a part of the union.

[Big Guy]

It's a tough one. How can a worker who does not join a union avail themselves of the benefits of collective bargaining?

I much prefer not being in a union, as I do a lot better from being paid based on merit, but when I was in the BCGEU, regardless of what I thought of their spending habits with my dues, I don't see how I could have not been a part of the union.

A number of states in the USA have a "Right To Work" statute that allows a worker to not join a union and not pay union dues. This allows people to opt out of a union and pay no dues. Eventually, more and more members opt out and the union is broken. That is the intent of the legislation and is usually effective.

Mine was a "trick" answer. What I was suggesting is that unions be eradicated. I have little belief in unions.

[Guest]

A number of states in the USA have a "Right To Work" statute that allows a worker to not join a union and not pay union dues. This allows people to opt out of a union and pay no dues. Eventually, more and more members opt out and the union is broken. That is the intent of the legislation and is usually effective.

Mine was a "trick" answer. What I was suggesting is that unions be eradicated. I have little belief in unions.

I don't really care one way or the other regarding unions, now that chimney sweeps have to be at least 16, but regarding my confusion: If a worker does not join a union and does not pay the dues, is it then a case of that worker receiving no union benefits, and bargaining for themselves with the employer? I can see that being quite beneficial for the employee if the employer wants to get rid of the union.

Edited April 3, 2016 by bcsapper

[Argus]

I don't really care one way or the other regarding unions, now that chimney sweeps have to be at least 16, but regarding my confusion: If a worker does not join a union and does not pay the dues, is is then a case of that worker receiving no union benefits, and bargaining for themselves with the employer? I can see that being quite benefocial for the employee if the employer wants to get rid of the union.

It is designed to get rid of unions. It is no surprise that states with such rules have a generally lower wage rate for most ordinary employees, with fewer, if any benefits, and few if any protection against unfair treatment. They also tend to have less regulation on business, less supervision of corporate pollution and less enforcement of safety rules and laws.

[Guest]

How then, can a union be effective without a closed shop?

[bush_cheney2004]

It is designed to get rid of unions. It is no surprise that states with such rules have a generally lower wage rate for most ordinary employees, with fewer, if any benefits, and few if any protection against unfair treatment. They also tend to have less regulation on business, less supervision of corporate pollution and less enforcement of safety rules and laws.

This is a bit of an overreach and generalization, as employers are subject to fair labour standards and employment laws regardless of a unionized workforce. Also, unions are also associated with unfair treatment, pollution, and safety violations, if only because of scale in some business sectors.

Excellent employee benefits are commonly found in non-unionized work environments. Employee recruiting and retention often depend on such benefits.

Edited April 3, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

How then, can a union be effective without a closed shop?

It can't. That's the idea.

[Argus]

This is a bit of an overreach and generalization, as employers are subject to fair labour standards and employment laws regardless of a unionized workforce. Also, unions are also associated with unfair treatment, pollution, and safety violations, if only because of scale in some business sectors.

Excellent employee benefits are commonly found in non-unionized work environments. Employee recruiting and retention often depend on such benefits.

Sure, excellent benefits if you have a hard to find skillset. If you're 'ordinary', well, not so much. And a lot of these states might have laws but but they're not all that stringent, and have slack enforcement, or none, leaving it up to the employee to retain a lawyer, which of course, rarely happens except at high levels. Unions are associated with pollution and safety violations? News to me.

Look, the best places in the world to be an ordinary worker are places with high concentrations of unions, which is mostly northern Europe, Germany, etc. That's just not debatable.

If you're a highly educated, highly skilled professional you probably have little use for a union. Most people do not fit into that category.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Unions are associated with pollution and safety violations? News to me.

Unionized industries like automotive, mining, energy, telecommunications, and government (e.g. municipalities) are associated with historical and current pollution / safety concerns/violations.

If you're a highly educated, highly skilled professional you probably have little use for a union. Most people do not fit into that category.

Agreed...working in a unionized workforce can be one of the most discouraging and least satisfying employment experiences if one is skilled and highly motivated for improvement.

[Argus]

Unionized industries like automotive, mining, energy, telecommunications, and government (e.g. municipalities) are associated with historical and current pollution / safety concerns/violations.

So not unions at all.

Agreed...working in a unionized workforce can be one of the most discouraging and least satisfying employment experiences if one is skilled and highly motivated for improvement.

Maybe, but society doesn't need to look out for such people. They're generally capable of doing that for themselves. Unions were enormously influential in building the middle class in the world, and their dwindling numbers and influence is not coincidental to the dwindling prospects of the middle class outside government.

[Wilber]

This week independent BC MLA Vicki Huntington introduced a bill that would prohibit corporate and union donations to provincial political parities. It was backed by the NDP and Green members but shot down by the ruling Liberals.