So what? Becoming a union doesn't mean a closed-shop contract emerges out of thin air.

6/13/2012 1:34:39 PM

No, but if at the expiration of a union contract the employer wishes to cease recognizing a union they can be legally forced to. How is that freedom of association?

6/13/2012 1:36:47 PM

If the contract expires it doesn't matter if they "recognize" the union or not, because they are no longer obligated to it. The contract is expired, that means the union and the employer aren't bound anymore until they form another contract.

That's kind of the point of contracts, to clearly define obligations as well as the start and end dates of those obligations.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 1:39:05 PM

Correct, but again, in a non-right to work state the NLRB can certify a union and force the company to negoatiate with the union. It pretty much guarantees that the union will be the representative of the workers in perpetuity as long as workers vote it into place. That's a pretty damned one sided way of negotiation don't you think?

Firm: "Ok, workers this contract is up, we would like to cease negotiating with you collectively no and would prefer to contract to employees on an individual basis."

NLRB: "Oooh, hey bad news, half of the workers voted that they would like to continue collective bargaining, therefore you must."

If they cannot come to an agreement on the terms of the contract the NLRB will step in and start making those decisions for them, and since the NLRB is decidedly pro-union (this is not my opinion, just look at their history) it pretty much guarantees another closed shop contract if one existed before.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:47 PM. Reason : asdsf]

6/13/2012 1:45:02 PM

Quote :

"Correct, but again, in a non-right to work state the NLRB can certify a union and force the company to negoatiate with the union. It pretty much guarantees that the union will be the representative of the workers in perpetuity as long as workers vote it into place. That's a pretty damned one sided way of negotiation don't you think?"

What's one-sided about it? The government respects the stockholders collective union, and respects the workers collective union.

Oh wait, you think it'd be more fair if the shareholders and owners and managers could all collude together, put forth a single representative (HR), but each employee must bargain individually, and is not allowed to band together exactly like the guys on the opposite side of the table?

Quote :

"Firm: "Ok, workers this contract is up, we would like to cease negotiating with you collectively no and would prefer to contract to employees on an individual basis." If they cannot come to an agreement on the terms of the contract the NLRB will step in and start making those decisions for them, and since the NLRB is decidedly pro-union (this is not my opinion, just look at their history) it pretty much guarantees another closed shop contract if one existed before."

You still haven't shown exactly what law requires companies to negotiate with entities they have no contractual obligations to. This is the fourth time I'm asking you to substantiate this ridiculous claim.

6/13/2012 1:58:09 PM

The national labor relations act.

6/13/2012 2:01:18 PM

Quote it

6/13/2012 2:04:54 PM

Quote :

"5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title]."

http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act

Anything else?

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:09 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/13/2012 2:08:11 PM

Also this notion that a company would ever recognize a union voluntarily is cracking me up.

"Hrm, yes, I'm just going to go ahead and let these guys band together in a way that expressly limits my ability to exploit them individually."

6/13/2012 2:08:49 PM

Quote :

""5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title].""

That's not the same thing as requiring them to negotiate with unions after the contract has expired.

Nor is it the same thing as the NLRB forcing them to sign a contract because a negotiation didn't get anywhere.

That's basically a peacekeeping procedure, because if it wasn't required then few if any employers would recognize any unions, and we'd have cities shut down for days at a time because strikes would (again) become far more necessary and common just to force the employer to talk to a representative rather than grill employees individually.

And none of this has anything to do with Right to Work, which limits the outcomes voluntary negotiations by prohibiting closed shops existing at all.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 2:13:50 PM

Quote :

"Also this notion that a company would ever recognize a union voluntarily is cracking me up. "

So you agree that they are sometimes forced to recognize a union even if there isn't an active union contract. Good to know.

6/13/2012 2:13:51 PM

Quote :

"That's not the same thing as requiring them to negotiate with unions after the contract has expired. Nor is it the same thing as the NLRB forcing them to sign a contract because a negotiation didn't get anywhere."

Only semantically. If they fail to reach an agreement there will be arbitration by the NLRB, which will result in a new contract.

6/13/2012 2:15:19 PM

The government forces employees to recognize corporations and firms, why not the other way around?

6/13/2012 2:15:21 PM

Quote :

"Only semantically. If they fail to reach an agreement there will be arbitration by the NLRB, which will result in a new contract."

A contract being written does not equal a contract being signed.

And you only responded to the arbitration part not the "post expiration negotiation" claims.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 2:15:45 PM

Both sides are bound by the decision of the arbitration. That's what an arbitration is.

Oh sure, I suppose in theory an arbitrator could decide that there will not be another union contract, but I can't think of a time that has happened.

To quote myself from earlier:

Quote :

"Correct, but again, in a non-right to work state the NLRB can certify a union and force the company to negoatiate with the union."

More specifically they certify the union which makes it the legal representatives of the workers even without an active contract. So yes, post contract they can be forced to negotiate with an entity with which they have no contractual obligation.


[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM. Reason : asdfs]

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM. Reason : simplifying]

6/13/2012 2:18:43 PM

Quote :

"Both sides are bound by the decision of the arbitration. That's what an arbitration is."

But if a contract is expired, the company has no obligation to interact whatsoever, let alone submit to an arbitration, unless such terms were part of the former contract. Unless you can show me otherwise (6th time)

Quote :

""Correct, but again, in a non-right to work state the NLRB can certify a union and force the company to negoatiate with the union.""

The company is forced to negotiate with the employees chosen representative, the union. Just like employees are forced to negotiate with the company's chosen representative, the HR guy. In fact, "The Company" is precisely a collective bargaining unit that every employee must submit to in order to negotiate at all.

Just like if the employee wants to sue his employer, all the shareholders, managers, etc enjoy limited liability precisely because the government respects their collective union.

You have no idea of what actual equal bargaining looks like, do you? Employers get to choose representatives, and collectively bargain through them, but you don't approve of employees doing so, because you think "divide and conquer" falls into an employer's right to free association. Why do some citizens get to defer to collective organizations, but not others?


And, still, none of this has any bearing on Right to Work, which simply disallows closed shop agreements between employers and employees, always, and in all cases. Yet you claim to support free association, while this law specifically limits contracts agreed upon via free association. So are you misinformed or a hypocrite?

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 2:26:25 PM

Quote :

"Unless you can show me otherwise (6th time)"

I'm not sure how many more times I can explain this. If you're unclear on it then read the nlra link i posted.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM. Reason : saf]

6/13/2012 2:30:07 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure how many more times I can explain this. "

How about "for the first time". This is now the 7th time I've asked you to show where the NLRA forces companies to collectively bargain with unions AFTER contracts have expired.

Quote :

"If you're unclear on it then read the nlra link i posted."

No, really, if it's there and you're so sure it's there, just quote the part that says that a company can be forced to negotiate a new contract with a union AFTER the former contract has expired (provided that the former contract did not specifically include such negotiations).

And for the record, please try again to explain how "No contract of any kind with a union may establish a closed shop." enhances free association, because that is exactly what Right to Work is.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 2:31:06 PM

Look, in right to work states unions are allowed, closed shops are not. In right to work states companies do negotiate with unions, this is not an opinion, this is a fact. The difference is that employees are not forced to join them. You are free to do so if you wish.

Unions are not barred from existing, negotiating, or operating. They are however prohibited from being the sole body allowed to negotiate.

Quote :

"d) [Obligation to bargain collectively] For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective- bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification-- (1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the expiration date thereof, or in the event such contract contains no expiration date, sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make such termination or modification; (2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications; (3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simultaneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency established to mediate and conciliate disputes within the State or Territory where the dispute occurred, provided no agreement has been reached by that time; and (4) continues in full force and effect, without resorting to strike or lockout, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs later: The duties imposed upon employers, employees, and labor organizations by paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) [paragraphs (2) to (4) of this subsection] shall become inapplicable upon an intervening certification of the Board, under which the labor organization or individual, which is a party to the contract, has been superseded as or ceased to be the representative of the employees subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], and the duties so imposed shall not be construed as requiring either party to discuss or agree to any modification of the terms and conditions contained in a contract for a fixed period, if such modification is to become effective before such terms and conditions can be reopened under the provisions of the contract. Any employee who engages in a strike within any notice period specified in this subsection, or who engages in any strike within the appropriate period specified in subsection (g) of this section, shall lose his status as an employee of the employer engaged in the particular labor dispute, for the purposes of sections 8, 9, and 10 of this Act [sections 158, 159, and 160 of this title], but such loss of status for such employee shall terminate if and when he is re-employed by such employer. Whenever the collective bargaining involves employees of a health care institution, the provisions of this section 8(d) [this subsection] shall be modified as follows: (A) The notice of section 8(d)(1) [paragraph (1) of this subsection] shall be ninety days; the notice of section 8(d)(3) [paragraph (3) of this subsection] shall be sixty days; and the contract period of section 8(d)(4) [paragraph (4) of this subsection] shall be ninety days. (B) Where the bargaining is for an initial agreement following certification or recognition, at least thirty days' notice of the existence of a dispute shall be given by the labor organization to the agencies set forth in section 8(d)(3) [in paragraph (3) of this subsection]. (C) After notice is given to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service under either clause (A) or (B) of this sentence, the Service shall promptly communicate with the parties and use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement. The parties shall participate fully and promptly in such meetings as may be undertaken by the Service for the purpose of aiding in a settlement of the dispute."

Look, how do you think unions get in place to begin with? Employees make a request to vote for a union with the NLRB. They vote. Majority rules. If they elect a union the company is required by law to negotiate with them. This is regardless of whether there was a union there never, 10 years ago, or if the contract expired yesterday. This is not difficult to understand.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:51 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/13/2012 2:46:00 PM

Here you go, in even fucking simpler verbage via http://www.nlrb.gov/faq/nlrb#t1n158

Quote :

"If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties. If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain. The parties' obligations do not end when the contract expires. They must bargain in good faith for a successor contract, or for the termination of the agreement, while terms of the expired contract continue."

Let me know when you get tired of being wrong.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:57 PM. Reason : asf]

6/13/2012 2:53:05 PM

Here's some more wrong from you in this thread:

Quote :

"No, it's not. The government is completely absent from the process of a union and an employer setting up a closed shop agreement. It's a voluntary agreement between two sets of actors to set up an exclusive business relationship. The government only "enforces" it so far as it penalizes companies that reneg on contracts, AKA fraud."

How does that mesh with this?

Quote :

"Also this notion that a company would ever recognize a union voluntarily is cracking me up. "Hrm, yes, I'm just going to go ahead and let these guys band together in a way that expressly limits my ability to exploit them individually.""

Please, do tell.

6/13/2012 3:15:42 PM

Quote :

"Required by what law? I'm unaware of this law that requires companies to negotiate with entities they have no contractual agreement with, unless of course that contract includes such negotiations as a condition."

That first union contract after 51% of workers have voted in favor of unionization...that contract is being signed by the company and 49% of the workers with no coercion at all? Then how-come whenever a walmart's workers vote to unionize, they close the store?

6/13/2012 4:43:36 PM

Quote :

"I was using "collective bargaining" to mean the workers represent themselves as an organized unified front, and interact with their employer as a group rather than individuals."

and what good is that if the state still doesn't have to listen to them? Integral to "collective bargaining" is the negotiation. You can't have the first without the second. I'm nitpicking now, but I hope you see my point.

Quote :

"17% of Obama supporters voted for Walker."

because Obama supporters are fucking morons to start with? sorry, you made it too easy.

Quote :

"Free association is being able to set up voluntary contracts with whoever you want."

The keyword being VOLUNTARY. Forced shops are, by definition, NOT VOLUNTARY. If I want to work for a place, and I am forced to join the union, then it's not voluntary.

6/16/2012 1:57:33 PM

It seems likely that str8foolish won't respond again in this thread.

6/16/2012 2:15:26 PM

Derp

11/20/2012 5:54:59 PM

ZOMG they are getting so close

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/walker-key-aides-implicated-during-doe-sentencing-fn7n3s3-180021891.html


Is there any doubt Scott Walker is at best a little crooked and at worst a felon? They haven't specfically named him in any investigations yet, but basically a majority of his aides from when before he was governor have been convicted of felonies . . . . . . . . is it just a matter of time?

[Edited on November 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM. Reason : I've never cheered for a DA so hard in my life]

11/20/2012 6:03:14 PM

Hey, it's this thread again.

11/23/2012 3:29:42 PM