|
| “The
laws
in
2013
st
|
|
 |
|
 |
“The laws in 2013 states REQUIRE the unoins to represent all. Its the law. If they refuse they can be sued by the ingrates.â€As usual, only half true, or maybe you can only regurgitate what you’re told?The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly legal for any union, in any state, to negotiate a ‘members only’ or a ‘exclusive’ contract. If the union chooses to negotiate an ‘exclusive’ contract then yes, it is legally obliged to represent non members who don’t pay dues (remember in non right to work states the non members still have to pay that portion of dues which goes towards negotiations). However it is the union who makes this decision, not the non member. If the union doesn’t want the ‘free rider’ problem then all they need to do is negotiate a ‘member only’ contract in which case, even in right to work states, they DO NOT have to represent non members. It is the unoins who create the free rider issue and they do so willingly. Then they dishonestly try to use it as a reason to outlaw right to work, oh poor us, we HAVE to represent these people who don't contribute, it's soooo unfair'. ?The fact of the matter is that if a union negotiates an exclusive contract the non members are the ones who lose their rights. By law they are no allowed to negotiate with the employer anything (pay, vacation, benefits) and have to accept what the union negotiates. They are not in fact free riders' but captive passengers'.In 2001 former textile workers union boss Peter Kellman and former electricians union organizing director Ed Bruno acknowledge that a monopoly bargaining (exclusive) constricts workers' freedom in WorkingUSA (you're probably a subscriber) saying: under sec 9 of NLRA, .the presence of a majority union extinguishes the right of dissenters to bargain as individuals or to form their own, minority unoins..thoughtful, pro-union analysts contend that when a majority union is insulated against competition, its officers may tend to ignore the interests of minorities The fact that the overwhelming majority of industrial countries reject exclusive representation should give us pause. At a minimum, we should reassess our commitment to the principal, and consider possible alternatives and modifications that might better serve labor freedom. In a truly free society, the individual bargaining that takes place in nonunion workplaces and members-only bargaining would compete on a level playing field, and each employee could determine which system is best suited to his or her needs. But then there would be no place for government authorized monopoly bargaining.? ? ?I think you're the ingrate!????
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Darion
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
16 december 2014, 11:07:15
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
190.39.173.187
|
|
|
|
