Wisconsin Gov Scott Walkers Anti-Union legislation

[MathiasOfAthens]

The governor recently signed into a law which banned unions from requiring dues from members. The thing I do not understand about this laws is if the workers chooses to be in the union shouldnt they be required to pay dues in order to receive benefits? Doesnt this law just give the workers the right to join unions and receive the benefits of that union without paying dues. Like having insurance on something but never paying monthly into the insurance.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/poli...k-bill-n319941

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law anti-union legislation that prohibits union workers from being required to pay union dues. The Right to Work law is an effort to reduce the power of unions in the Midwestern state and is one that will give Walker additional conservative bona fides in his likely presidential bid.Walker refused to indicate during his reelection campaign in 2014 if he would support the legislation. His signature Monday morning makes Wisconsin the 25th state to implement the ban that was passed by the Republican legislature earlier this month.

Opponents of the bill say it will decimate unions and have a ripple effect of suppressing the ability of workers to organize while supporters, including Walker, say that this will lead to economic growth.

And its not the first Anti-Union legislation:

This is the second major anti-union legislation that Walker has supported. In 2011, he ushered through highly controversial legislation titled Act 10 that reduced the bargaining power as well as health care and pension benefits of public sector unions. The move led to a recall election, which Walker won.

Unions in Wisconsin are already weaker than they were before Walker.

I am ok with laws allowing workers to decide whether or not they want to join the union and pay into said union. But this right to work laws just make the unions weaker by allowing freeloaders to receive union benefits without paying. Whatever benefits they are now they are reduced from what they were years ago.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

If someone wants to join a Union - knowing full well that they have to pay membership dues, or choosing to do so - then that's their call to make. I see many on the Right think freedom is all well and dandy until it starts to work against business interests. Freedom indeed. This is surely Unconstitutional.

[Derpy Hooves]

If someone wants to join a Union - knowing full well that they have to pay membership dues, or choosing to do so - then that's their call to make. I see many on the Right think freedom is all well and dandy until it starts to work against business interests. Freedom indeed. This is surely Unconstitutional.

​How is it unconstitutional?

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

​How is it unconstitutional?

One could argue it under the 9th and 10th Amendments. And it could be put under a tenuous (this I freely admit) interpretation of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; on the basis that a Union is a political as well as social organisation, or at least can be - and that as such under the Citizens United v. FEC interpretation banning donations to a Union could be seen as Unconstitutional. But again I concede this is tenuous. One could also see it as violating the National Labor Relations Act.

[Symphony]

One could argue it under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The 9th and 10th Amendments set limits on the Federal government from infringing on or interfering in unenumerated rights that are retained by the people and by the individual states, respectively. As a State government is the one that is instituting this law, those Amendments aren't applicable.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

The 9th and 10th Amendments set limits on the Federal government from infringing on or interfering in unenumerated rights that are retained by the people and by the individual states, respectively. As a State government is the one that is instituting this law, those Amendments aren't applicable.

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserves to the States respectively, or to the people."

Freedom of Association is a pretty basic liberal right - and is implicit in the 1st Amendment.

[MathiasOfAthens]

​How is it unconstitutional?

Could a state government or the US government for that matter force Insurance companies pay out benefits like healthcare or car repairs to members who do not pay their dues? Would that be constitutional? How can the government force unions to provide benefits to non-paying members? At the same time those unions would essentially lose a lot of income and could go out of, technically, business.

[ShockBlast]

Could a state government or the US government for that matter force Insurance companies pay out benefits like healthcare or car repairs to members who do not pay their dues? Would that be constitutional? How can the government force unions to provide benefits to non-paying members? At the same time those unions would essentially lose a lot of income and could go out of, technically, business.

That is the whole point to destroy the unions.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That is the whole point to destroy the unions.

To be fair, that's how public insurance works, especially in progressive systems. Some pay alot, others pay less, and some pay nothing at all, and everyone (ideally) enjoys the same level of care and access to services. Therefore I don't think the free-riding metric alone can be used to justify a conspiratorial argument in which unseen forces are striving to destroy an entity that already has been dying a natural death for decades. The labor/trade union is conceptually founded on the idea of non-competition. Therefore as sumskilz and others have noted, this isn't about free-riding as it is about powerful special interests who don't want market forces to mess with their racketeering formula. As I said I'm ready and willing to hear counters to that observation, but I've yet to see any and given the alternatives on both sides, said observation makes the most logical sense in light of the available information.

If Right to Work does not only allow but require unions to permit free-riding, then it is indeed a fundamental violation of freedom of association. However, that does not seem to be the case, and if free-riding is really the impetus of opposition here, then the simple solution is to learn how to properly formulate a contractual agreement - period.

[sumskilz]

The issue is that workers are having to pay the fees even if they don't join the union...

Unions argue that the fees are fair for nonunion members who still benefit from the contracts they negotiate, and that without a requirement, their membership, financial support and very existence are threatened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/us...work-bill.html

[Big War Bird]

The article cited by the OP is confusing at best The law does not prevent or except union members from paying member dues. What it does is prevent workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. This forces a union to actually persuade new hires and existing workers that the union is worthwhile. If it chooses not, does not and can not, the union deserves extinction. If on the other hand it does those things then it will flourish. In either case the winner is the worker.

[justicar5]

The article cited by the OP is confusing at best The law does not prevent or except union members from paying member dues. What it does is prevent workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. This forces a union to actually persuade new hires and existing workers that the union is worthwhile. If it chooses not, does not and can not, the union deserves extinction. If on the other hand it does those things then it will flourish. In either case the winner is the worker.

As long as the CEO has to write an essay of 100 words, multiplied by the amount he is paid more than the average, per day to justify that re-enumeration, after all if he is paid 20 times as much, doing the work of 20 normal men must be childs play to him, a 2,000 word essay on top of his normal work should be no harder for him than a letter is for a mere mortal. OR is the pay actually just gouging? Is he really not super human? Well this is a fair test.

[Big War Bird]

As long as the CEO has to write an essay of 100 words, multiplied by the amount he is paid more than the average, per day to justify that re-enumeration, after all if he is paid 20 times as much, doing the work of 20 normal men must be childs play to him, a 2,000 word essay on top of his normal work should be no harder for him than a letter is for a mere mortal. OR is the pay actually just gouging? Is he really not super human? Well this is a fair test.

There is one minute of my life I will never get back.

[Symphony]

As long as the CEO has to write an essay of 100 words, multiplied by the amount he is paid more than the average, per day to justify that re-enumeration, after all if he is paid 20 times as much, doing the work of 20 normal men must be childs play to him, a 2,000 word essay on top of his normal work should be no harder for him than a letter is for a mere mortal. OR is the pay actually just gouging? Is he really not super human? Well this is a fair test.

Since the topic on the table is union legislation, I'm assuming you'd be fine with union leadership having to write the same daily essay?

[Gaidin]

As long as the CEO has to write an essay of 100 words, multiplied by the amount he is paid more than the average, per day to justify that re-enumeration, after all if he is paid 20 times as much, doing the work of 20 normal men must be childs play to him, a 2,000 word essay on top of his normal work should be no harder for him than a letter is for a mere mortal. OR is the pay actually just gouging? Is he really not super human? Well this is a fair test.

You have no clue what an executive does. While I would be the first to agree about 99% of them get paid way to frakking much, you really have no clue what they do. Also, see post 38.

[Enros]

As long as the CEO has to write an essay of 100 words, multiplied by the amount he is paid more than the average, per day to justify that re-enumeration, after all if he is paid 20 times as much, doing the work of 20 normal men must be childs play to him, a 2,000 word essay on top of his normal work should be no harder for him than a letter is for a mere mortal. OR is the pay actually just gouging? Is he really not super human? Well this is a fair test.

Firstly, a CEO will of course never work 20 times as hard, but they will work 2-2.5x as many hours per week as the average worker, and they certainly had to put in more time and effort in the past to get where they are. Secondly, people aren't paid in proportion to how hard they work. Digging holes all day is very hard but doesn't pay well. Artistically designing buildings for 7 hours a day 5 days a week is very easy hours and the people who do it really enjoy it, and it pays a lot. The difference is, the architect had to work very hard in the past in order to master architecture and make a name, while the hole digger was doing something else with their time. The hole digger might have been lazy in the past or they might have been unlucky. Is it fair? No, but life isn't fair. Our current capitalist system is aimed at making everyone richer, not making everyone equally rich. That means it must incentivize everyone to work as hard as possible, even if some simply can't work as hard as others.

Of course, crimes like lying that gets people killed, price-fixing, monopolization, and other rent-seeking behavior are often carried out by CEOs, but these are illegal and if you suspect a CEO of them you can report them to the police.

[Lord Thesaurian]

OK so I'd like to ask questions here as I'm not too familiar with the issue.

First off, there seems to be confusion here about what Right to Work actually is given all the propaganda:

A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Wisconsin becomes the 25th Right to Work state, which doesn't seem all that notable of course if only given its position on the list. However given that Walker has specifically gained national attention on this issue for literally several years, I'm rather wondering why the press has been paying so much attention to this particular issue in this particular state. Is it simply because unions are especially powerful in that state? I honestly don't know.

My understanding of pro-Right to Work arguments: No working person should be denied entry to a workplace or forced to pay/join a union based solely on a mandate from a previously negotiated security agreement.

My understanding of anti-Right to Work arguments: Allowing non-union members to work in a member organization creates a free-rider problem as non-members do not pay dues but are afforded the same benefits.

Taking each position at face value, I must say I don't really understand why this is an issue at all. If union members are worried about free-riding, it would seem the onus is on them to negotiate security agreements that exclusively apply to members; that is, if I'm worried that Bob will benefit from my efforts without having contributed anything, it's my job to properly formulate the agreement with my employer so that Bob does not benefit from what I've worked to negotiate.

Now, I won't deny my bias. As the son of a third generation business owner and entrepreneur, I have no love for what I would consider the antiquated and hyper-politicized mechanism known as the labor/trade union. That said, even at face value, like I said, I honestly do not understand how this is such a hot-button issue when the real problem seems to be with a failure to properly formulate contract language - unless organized labor is simply upset that Right to Work legislation undermines their ability to exert complete monopolistic control over labor in a given sector/region. But, like I said, this isn't my area of expertise. Please, someone, explain this to me.
-------------------------------
As for the Constitutional issue, there is none. If a state government can establish a minimum wage and other labor standards outside direct federal control, then it can certainly decide whether or not it should be permissible to bar someone from working some place on the sole basis of some arbitrary agreement between third parties (imagine an agreement between a union and employers to bar people of a certain race from working there or to charge them a fee based on their status). Moreover, if the government can force you to buy health insurance and charge you extra to buy health insurance for someone else on top of that, then I think you can see why no new ground is being broken here.

However, I think that detracts from the real issue, which is, why is this really an issue?

[MathiasOfAthens]

OK so I'd like to ask questions here as I'm not too familiar with the issue.

First off, there seems to be confusion here about what Right to Work actually is given all the propaganda:

Wisconsin becomes the 25th Right to Work state, which doesn't seem all that notable of course if only given its position on the list. However given that Walker has specifically gained national attention on this issue for literally several years, I'm rather wondering why the press has been paying so much attention to this particular issue in this particular state. Is it simply because unions are especially powerful in that state? I honestly don't know.

My understanding of pro-Right to Work arguments: No working person should be denied entry to a workplace or forced to pay/join a union based solely on a mandate from a previously negotiated security agreement.

My understanding of anti-Right to Work arguments: Allowing non-union members to work in a member organization creates a free-rider problem as non-members do not pay dues but are afforded the same benefits.

Taking each position at face value, I must say I don't really understand why this is an issue at all. If union members are worried about free-riding, it would seem the onus is on them to negotiate security agreements that exclusively apply to members; that is, if I'm worried that Bob will benefit from my efforts without having contributed anything, it's my job to properly formulate the agreement with my employer so that Bob does not benefit from what I've worked to negotiate.

Now, I won't deny my bias. As the son of a third generation business owner and entrepreneur, I have no love for what I would consider the antiquated and hyper-politicized mechanism known as the labor/trade union. That said, even at face value, like I said, I honestly do not understand how this is such a hot-button issue when the real problem seems to be with a failure to properly formulate contract language - unless organized labor is simply upset that Right to Work legislation undermines their ability to exert complete monopolistic control over labor in a given sector/region. But, like I said, this isn't my area of expertise. Please, someone, explain this to me.
-------------------------------
As for the Constitutional issue, there is none. If a state government can establish a minimum wage and other labor standards outside direct federal control, then it can certainly decide whether or not it should be permissible to bar someone from working some place on the sole basis of some arbitrary agreement between third parties (imagine an agreement between a union and employers to bar people of a certain race from working their or to charge them a fee based on their status). Moreover, if the government can force you to buy health insurance and charge you extra to buy health insurance for someone else on top of that, then I think you can see why no new ground is being broken here.

However, I think that detracts from the real issue, which is, why is this really an issue?

The solution sounds simple then. Allow non members to work and not be forced to join the union. As it works in European Unions. At least Swedish ones. However, Republicans decided to support freeriders by allowing people to join but not pay. So the simple solution was ignored and created this who ing mess.

[sumskilz]

However, Republicans decided to support freeriders by allowing people to join but not pay.

What makes you think that? I haven't read that. They could already not join, but they were still having to pay the fees.

EDIT: Ah I see now, one could easily interpret the wording of that article you posted that way. That's not how it's explained in the NY Times article though. Hmm...

[MathiasOfAthens]

What makes you think that? I haven't read that. They could already not join, but they were still having to pay the fees.

EDIT: Ah I see now, one could easily interpret the wording of that article you posted that way. That's not how it's explained in the NY Times article though. Hmm...

Every source I have read on this states the same thing... that these laws allow everyone to benefit from unions collective bargaining.