I'll keep this one short: Huh?scratch wrote:The moreso for an absolute verbiage fountain like yourself, you silly little make-believe libertarian.
Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
WestSideYuppie wrote:How many months until Michigan's Governor complains that there is a shortage of qualified workers in Michigan?
Actually, there has been a shortage of qualified skilled workers in Michigan for some time.
What there is not is a shortage of unskilled workers. Think assembly line types, machine feeders and the like.
RTW laws, on their own, are clearly not in alignment with libertarian principles. (They involve government dictating the terms of private contracts!)
Pretty much correct. If workers had adequate protection from unions such as their agency fees being used for other than representational activity or regular (5-10 years) union recertification
elections, RTW laws would not be necessary.
A worker taking a job in a union company, by joining that company pretty much agrees to the union conditions, it seems to me.
On the other hand, a worker in a non-union company might vote against unionization. If 50% +1 of their cow-orkers vote in favor of the union, why is it fair to force this person to be a member or even pay agency fees?
I would also agree with you that this intersection of individual, union and employer is a grey area. As I understood your comment about politics.
I don't think there is any clear, bright line libertarian answer here.
ArturoBandini wrote:I'd prefer a simple removal of existing collective bargaining laws and overturning of associated legal precedent.
In general, I disagree with you. The only major change I would make to the actual law, NLRA, would be to require regular elections.
I do not like the way agency fees are calculated and collected. I think that in generaly unions collect far more than they should. In a story the other day, the WI teachers union (I think) was spending 11% of dues income on representational activity. Yet agency fees were set at 90% of dues. Seems to be quite a mismatch. This is not a problem of the law, it is a problem of the way the law is applied.
The other problem I have is the requirement to negotiate in "good faith". I have no problem with the concept. I would have a big problem if either side did not negotiate in good faith. The problem I have is how "good faith" is often interpreted by the NLRB and courts. I think there needs to be more reality in this.
Finally, I have a huge problem with union violence. Unions go on strike. The company hires free market replacement workers. The union physically attacks them as they try to enter the plant. Government/police do nothing. Companies do respond sometimes with violence and are completely wrong to do so. Historically and even as recently as this week, most labor dispute violence is initiated by the union and/or its members. Not all, but the overwhelming majority.
Overall, I am more or less OK with the NLRA and would certainly not repeal it.
I do think management has a responsibility, which they often don't live up to, to make unions unnecessary. I think that is the real solution.
johnfajardohenry wrote:The only major change I would make to the actual law, NLRA, would be to require regular elections.
Just to clarify, I mean that periodically, say every 5-10 years, unions should have to be recertified by an election, with secret ballot. If they fail to gain a majority, they would be out.