Union vs "Right to Work"

[rrilling]

There has been quite a discussion in the “What is Wrong with this System” thread over some of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of belonging to a union shop (required enrollment in the union after a set period of days to continue to maintain employment) vs an open shop (No requirement to join).

Some of the arguments:

Argument in favor of the closed and union shop:.
unions can win a fair return for their labor only through solidarity, since there is always—except in wartime—an oversupply of labor; and that, since all employees of a plant share in the advantages won through collective bargaining, all workers should contribute to union funds.

According to a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision: "A union shop arrangement has been thought to distribute fairly the cost of these (representative) activities among those who benefit, and it counteracts the incentive that employees might otherwise have to become “free riders”; to refuse to contribute to the union while obtaining benefits of union representation that necessarily accrue to all employees."


Arguments in favor of the open shop:
forcing unwilling workers to pay union dues is an infringement of their rights; that union membership is sometimes closed to certain workers or the initiation fee so high as to be an effective bar to membership; and that employers are deprived of the privilege of hiring competent workers or firing incompetent ones.

What are your views? Would also be interested in hearing from individuals in “Right to Work” states, especially those not covered by a union contract. Are you better off without a union? How so?

"You will find some people saying that they are for so-called 'Right-to-Work' law, but they also believe in unions. This is absurd -- it's like saying you are for motherhood but against children."
-- Harry S. Truman

Note: Right-to-work states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: rrilling ]

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Well my thoughts on the subject are pretty well known. Collective bargaining has been a great thing for the firefighters of Illinois. We have had nothing but positives being affiliated with the IAFF. We are able to negotiate virtually lawyer-free. The International and State Association have made the information available that allows us to go into negotiations with a better grasp on what our rights are. We can represent our members because we have the information and the process to back it up. We may win some arbitration cases and we may lose some. The fact remains that we do have a right to sit across from our employers and negotiate benefits, wages and work rules. I give alot of credit to those IAFF members in right to work states. They are paying their dues like the rest of us. I just wish that they would have the same rights enjoyed by firefighters in Illinois. Brother Rich Banske of IAFF Local 621 wrote a scathing letter to Sen. Larry Craig about the scare tactics used by the Republicans when the vote on National Collective bargaining for firefighters came up in the Senate. Rich is a lifelong Republican and his words struck a chord with many of us. I myself am a registered Republican and I am proud that Sen. Peter Fitzgerald had the courage to go against the party on this issue. Sen. Fitzgerald is a very conservative man. So dont go howling that its just "liberals" that support collective bargaining for firefighters.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I am wondering how the Union Firefighters of Oklahoma are doing in the wake of their state recently enacting right to work? I am curious to how this effects their negotiations.

[firecat1524]

I live in South Carolina, a right to work state, and have lived nowhere else in my adult years....so to be honest I couldn't answer the question on if I would be better off one way or the other. I suppose we could vote to join the IAFF here...but it wouldn't do any good in regards to dealing with our governmentsince they don't have to deal with the union, and can still hire and fire as they please.

[firefighter_632]

This is going to be one of those topics. I personally feel that one should not be forced to join any organization as a condition of employment. The union has been a catalyist for many positive changes in the country. But I have also seen a side of the unions that I find to be unacceptable given my moral beliefs. I hope that this topic does not end in another arguement, but i think it will.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Brother, you have every right NOT to join a union.

[Dalmatian90]

In 1999, the annual average pay in free states was $33,104, compared with $28,035 in right-to-work states—an 18 percent difference.

What is 18%?

On supper break, I didn't have time to use one of the internet cost of living calculators for all fifty states, but I did do the first six "right to work" and first six "union" states. I'd guess that's a pretty good sample for this little exercise.

To make the math easy I choose the base to be a salary of $100,000 in Hartford, CT. If you want to know the numbers for $50,000, divide in half.

Comparing the capital (or what I believe to be the capital city ) of these twelve states give us:

First six "right to work states"
Montgomery, Alabama $92,000 (i.e. $92,000 in Montgomery buys what $100,000 does in Hartford, CT)
Phoenix, Arizona $83,000
Little Rock, Arkansas $80,000
Jacksonville, Florida $83,000
Atlanta, Georgia $90,000
Boise, Idaho $87,000
Average: $85,000

First six "union states"
Juneau, Alaska $126,000
Sacramento, California $100,000
Denver, Colorado $92,000
Hartford, Connecticut $100,000
Wilmington, Delaware $83,000
Honolulu, Hawaii $116,000
Average: $102,000

Difference in average cost of living between the first six right to work states and first six union states: 17% cheaper to live Right to Work states.

Hmmm, and right to work states average 18% lower wages. Does that difference reflect Union efforts, or the differences in what standard of living a dollar buys in different areas?

--------------
In checking a couple facts though, I did come realize where IAFF does get some of it's seemingly increasing prominence in organized labor. Teachers, Police, and Firefighters by far are the most organized employees (rates around 45%) of the most organized segment (Public Employers at 37.5%).

More over, I'm guesstimating from the numbers I saw that about 25% to 30% of overall union members are either Teachers, Police Officers, or Firefighters.

Since 1970, when public sector still wasn't heavily unionized, overall union membership has dropped from 25% of workers to 14%. If you took away the gains in the public sector, they probably would dropped even further to around 10%!

[AVFR452]

My Experience:

I worked on a federal installation in a right to work state. The union went to court claiming that the right to work law did not apply because the workplace was on a federal enclave. The union prevailed. As a result, we ended up with a closed shop, and anyone that refused to sign to allow dues witholding was shown the door. We paid our dues and got NOTHING in return. The local reps instantly forgot that we existed. Phone calls weren't returned, representation and contract negotiations became little more than "It's a good deal-Take it". The dues money was guaranteed and there was no longer a need to work for it. Luckily, the ruling was overturned and the RTW law was reinstated. Wouldn't you know it, the representation got considerably better.

Incidently, I have belonged to the union since long before all of this happened. Still Do.
I don't mind paying for something that benefits me. I just don't like paying for a service that i'm not getting

Stay Safe

Jim

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: AVF&R452 ]

[rrilling]

I understand that there is some resistance to FF unions, but instead of just posting your objection to them, could you tell us WHY you object, and how "Right to Work" helps you as a firefighter.

FireFighter George posted a great response to why he supports his union:


First I have to state that I never liked the idea of unions, until I became a firefighter. I only know what I see locally, but our union and its strength have provided the following:
1. Help with workers comp claims. Firefighters are more likely to be injured on the job than any other profession. Ever file a workers comp claim? If you haven't been in that water, you will be bitten repeatedly if you don't have help. Our union takes your hand and holds it til the end.

2. Safety. The union here is responsible for demanding the safety equipment and training that has helped us to avoid a line of duty death for 20 years. (God, I hope that one doesn't come back to haunt me)

3. Pay. One of the highest pay scales for FF based on cost of living in the region. I am a FF Emt-B, 5 years on, I made $49,000 last year. Thats with only twenty hours overtime. My salary is based around $18 and change per hour and I work 48 hours a week. 24 on 48 off, Kelly day every three weeks.

4. Representation. A trip to internal could be a potential nightmare if you don't know what you don't have to say. Our union reps know their stuff and protect us all the way.

5. Differed comp.

6. Health benefits. We pay $20 a pay for family coverage, but it is still lower than any union employee of the city. Lower than anywhere I worked in the 15 years I was in the private sector.

7. Sick time sell back. We bank sick time and can sell back 96 hours a year at 1 for 1 if we don't use it for three years, once we acrue 720 hours. Takes about six years.

8. Vacation. We acrue 4.8 hours a pay (average) and can bank several hundred hours depending on longevity.

9. Holiday pay. We don't get overtime for Holidays, but whether we work them or not, we acrue 4.8 hours a pay and can bank sevral hundred hours and sell back 24 a year 1 for 1. We pick holiday off time when we pick vacation.

All courtesy of the union.
Sure, it protects some zeros. But hey, more fire for the rest of us.

"There is strength in numbers". 785 as a matter of fact.


Could someone from the anti-union side post something similar?

[mongofire_99]

rrilling

It was my assumption that most FF’s would be pro-union, yet there were several posters who vehemently disagreed with my belief.

Well, you know what happens when you assume...

And you're spinning this the wrong way. There aren't several posters who disagree with your belief that firefighters are pro-union, there are several posters that do not wished to be forced to join a union.

Are you better off with the IAFF? Or are you better off living in a "Right to Work" state?

Better off in a RTW state.

Data released by the US Department of Labor in 1998:

[*]Lower unemployment in RTW states for all but four years since 1978[*]Non-farm jobs created in RTW states at a pace twice that of slave states since 1977[*]Construction jobs created at a rate 1/3 faster in RTW states than slave states[*]Manufacturing? RTW states gained over 800,000 jobs since '77, slave states lost 2,000,000 jobs.
[/list]

Heres some stuff to think about. Accurate or biased?

Biased as hell.

How could you possibly think anything else when you state that RTW states are not free with this quote: "the annual average pay in free states was $33,104, compared with $28,035 in right-to-work states" an 18 percent difference.

Dalamtion90 covered the CoL stuff nicely.

But I must ask (and I don't wish to sound offensive), rrilling, what is your definition of free?

The US version or the Soviet version?

How can you be free when you are unconstitutionally forced into joining an organization you do not wish to associate with?

And since you chose to define free as being forced to do something let's call your free states what they really are, slave states.

After all, the definition of free in relation to this topic is "Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: a free act of the will; free choices."

And the definition of slave is: "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

Did I get those backwards?

If I am forced to join a union to work somewhere, or say I've worked there a year shy of my pension and the union gets voted in and as such I must join or be fired as AVF&R452 pointed out - how free am I?

Right-to-work laws are a bad deal for workers because they restrict workers' right to union representation

BS. The US Constitution and subsequent Federal law guarantees you can join a union. One state I know of does not allow municpal employees to collectively bargain. However, muncipal employee unions in that state have met, conferred and bargained with their respective cities. Granted any subsequent challenges would be thrown out of court.

Right-to-work states have lower "union density"

Duh.

Note: Right-to-work states are...

You forgot Oklahoma.

Idaho becomes 21st state to pass "Right-to-Work." After passage, the average annual wage of carpenters there dropped from $33,000 to $22,000.

And business has flocked to Idaho according to Dave Whalet, Idaho AFL-CIO Pres in an OpEd piece for the Idaho Falls Post Register

Union membership helps raise workers' pay

And their total cost of living.

Their median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary work were $696 in 2000, compared with $542 for their nonunion counterparts.

Without knowing the CoL of the areas studied, the studies are meaningless. Unless of course you wish to step out on a limb and say all firefighters across the US shall make X amount and are required to only pay Y amount for a new car and Z amount for groceries.

Do you wish to federalize the pay scale of the fire service?

Union Pay Is Higher in Nearly All Occupational Groups

Again CoL...

LOCALPREZMIKE

The fact remains that we do have a right to sit across from our employers and negotiate benefits, wages and work rules.

And

I give alot of credit to those IAFF members in right to work states. They are paying their dues like the rest of us. I just wish that they would have the same rights enjoyed by firefighters in Illinois.

So do RTW states!

And you know what else?

We were told the rules before we were hired! They said "we're gonna pay you this, but you gotta do that and you can't do this. And then we'll give you CoL raises and grade pay, insurance, retriement (God I wished I had hired on in Beaumont in the early '80's) and all that good stuff."

And then they asked "do you wish to work for us under these conditions?"

And I, being an adult and fully understanding what I was doing said "yes."

And look at me now! I'm part of the evil rich and I'm just a podunk FF with two jobs.

But I crank out 103,000 Chicago dollars a year for my ten day a month fulltime parttime job.

Does Chicago pay FF Captains $103,000 a year?

Yeah, don't feel too bad.

Let's start a boot firefighter in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at 50,000 to 56,000 Chicago dollars. That's 30,000 Texas Right to Work, uh I mean DFW dollars.

Does Chicago start firefighters at $50,000?

Should we have the feds step in and say that nationwide all firefighters shall make the equvalent of X amount of dollars in, say, DFW dollars? (it would then be adjusted for CoL depending on where you lived)

How about a McDonalds employee, shall we say they shall all make X in DFW dollars?

(just curious, what does a boot firefighter make up there? pm me if you don't wanna post it, I'll never tell)

...when the vote on National Collective bargaining for firefighters came up in the Senate.

rrilling, from a statement in another post, you seem to be a fan of states rights (good for you, there's hope!).

Are municipal firefighter jobs state and local issues or federal issues?

Well, since firefighter jobs are state and local issues, is a national collective bargaining right for firefighters Constitutional?

firecat1524

they don't have to deal with the union, and can still hire and fire as they please.

Do you know how hard it is to fire someone these days?

LOCALPREZMIKE

Brother, you have every right NOT to join a union.

Yep, just go to work in an RTW state or a non-union shop.

Dalmatian90

Great post Dalmation90!

rrilling

I understand that there is some resistance to FF unions, but instead of just posting your objection to them, could you tell us WHY you object, and how "Right to Work" helps you as a firefighter.

I don't object to the union.

I object to being forced to join.

I object to having a portion of my paycheck confiscated and turned over to political candidates and objectives I do not support.

I object to the protecting of worthless pieces of meat that actually earned getting fired on the sole basis they're a good dues paying member, even though they're cowards on the fireground or at the station or in life in general. (Did you know he's not a thief, he's a clepto and needs his job and psychiatric help? Oh, and the city needs to provide us all with new padlocks for our lockers.)

Firefighters are more likely to be injured on the job than any other profession.

Wrong. Next...

Safety. The union here is responsible for demanding the safety equipment and training that has helped us to avoid a line of duty death for 20 years.

And nationwide there are numerous VFDs and non-union departments that have never had a serious injury or fatality in their entire existence?

How did they accomplish this without a union?

(God, I hope that one doesn't come back to haunt me)

Me too amigo. And I hope I didn't curse those of us that have never had an incident.

One of the highest pay scales for FF based on cost of living in the region.

Your city may have it's priorities straight too.

A trip to internal could be a potential nightmare if you don't know what you don't have to say.

Who's responsible for knowing your rights?

Dare I say you are?

The rest of the stuff is typical. Not too sure how much credit to give the union though as the oldtimers tell me we had similar prior to it.

But he pays less for family insurance.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: mongofire_99 ]

And edited again for spelling and some grammer errors later that day.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: mongofire_99 ]

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: mongofire_99 ]

[BucksEng91]

mongo -

Just an excellent, excellent post. I can't add anything to it. I'd just like to re-emphasize what you said near the beginning of your post.

The spin on this thread is throwing off a breeze. No one that I've seen either here or in the other forum rrilling referred to has said that they object to "the union" (IAFF) or unions in general.

What all of us who support "right to work" HAVE said is that it is un-American, anti-liberty, and bordering on socialist to COERCE and FORCE someone to join an organization which he or she may not wish to join. Making it a condition of employment takes all responsibility for good faith practices off the union. Luckily for most firefighters, the IAFF and its associated locals generally do some very good, positive work that benefits both their members and the departments they bargain with, and even non-union and volunteer MOS.

But they are under no real pressure or obligation to do so - it's not as if they can be thrown out and replaced with a new organization, or if the people so choose, no union at all. This is the sticking point. Unions, and the IAFF in particular, heavily support a specific political agenda and persuation that at least half the nation (if the results of the last election are used as a barometer) disagrees with forcefully. If I and my colleagues in a union don't want our dues to go to support political candidacies and initiatives that we don't agree with, we can't simply leave the union. We can't withold dues. We can't form a competing organization that better represents our views. See, that's called "freedom of association". And there simply is not much of it in non-"right to work" shops. And THAT, rrilling, is un-American and wrong.

How's that for a trip into the 'no spin zone'?

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: BucksEng91 ]

[Dalmatian90]

Could someone from the anti-union side post something similar?

Well, I'm not neccessarily anti-union. I am anti hyperbole, and I am anti closed-shop.

1. Help with workers comp claims.

Firefighters are more likely to be injured on the job than any other profession.

That I'm honestly doubtful of. We're not the leader, by far, in fatality rates.

Unfortunately, I found it hard to get only non-fatal injury statistics for firefighters since it appears the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't track the public sector for "non-OSHA" states.

We're currently experiencing about 100 deaths per year, roughly 50 out of the 250,000 career members and 50 out of the 750,000 volunteers. For Career firefighters, that's a fatality rate of 20 per hundred thousand; for the fire service overall it's 10 per hundred thousand.

Many occupations have both *more* deaths each year and *higher* fatality rates such as Fishing, Logging, Truck Driving, Construction Labor, and Taxi drivers to name a few (see http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/1997/Summer/brf3tabs.pdf )

I really wish we had good state-by-state injury stats for Firefighters. Cause I have a strong feeling that you'll find the more union-friendly midwest and northeast states have much higher injury rates than RTW states in the South and West.

[/i] Ever file a workers comp claim? If you haven't been in that water, you will be bitten repeatedly if you don't have help. Our union takes your hand and holds it til the end.[/i]

Thankfully not. Fortunately I still have short and long-term disability through my private employer that still pays just as if I broke my leg skiing or anything else.

2. Safety. The union here is responsible for demanding the safety equipment and training

Injury rates have fallen at the same time Union membership and strength in general industry are falling. If Unions were the primary cause behind improved safety, then one would expect as their power decreased, safety records would worsen.

But that hasn't been the case.
History has been turned on its head in the 1990s, and no one is quite sure why. Neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics nor OSHA has the time or money for more in-depth research. "It's all speculation," says OSHA chief Charles Jeffress.

Taking his stab at an answer, Jeffress says injuries started declining the '90s around the time healthcare costs, including workers' compensation, became a significant corporate concern. As a result, "safety and health has had a higher visibility in the '90s," he says

(http://www.ishn.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2162,2963,00.html)

Moreover, the most heavily unionized segment of the economy (Public employees) have overall injury rates twice that of private industry.

Now how much of that is public employees unionizing against bad working conditions, how much is strong unions making sure every injury is counted, and how much it is States that can control lawsuits via sovereign immunity, I'm not sure. But it is a striking difference. Makes you wonder whose more effective, Unions or Trial Lawyers.

7. Sick time sell back. We bank sick time and can sell back 96 hours a year at 1 for 1 if we don't use it for three years, once we acrue 720 hours. Takes about six years.

8. Vacation. We acrue 4.8 hours a pay (average) and can bank several hundred hours depending on longevity.

9. Holiday pay. We don't get overtime for Holidays, but whether we work them or not, we acrue 4.8 hours a pay and can bank sevral hundred hours and sell back 24 a year 1 for 1.

There are certain financial tricks government like and can to use -- many of which are either not available or restricted by financial or regulatory reasons to private employers. Productivity isn't so important as staying within the bounds of tax levies.

So you'll find items like 35 hour work weeks (in exchange for no raises for several years back in the 1970s in CT's case), and the ability to bank vacation and sick time much more common in the public sector than private sector. My town simply does not pay overtime -- you receive comp time instead, even in the Union shops. After a snowy winter, the highway crew may end up with four or six weeks of paid comp time off in the summer in addition to their vacation time.

To allow "banking" of time by public employees doesn't concern most government agencies. Having someone spend the last six months of their career at home using up vacation and sick time means loss of productivity, but the budget is not affected. Similiarly, most would rather pay straight time for unused hours than overtime to cover someone taking it off. Public agencies generally are much more concerned about staying within their tax-based budget than with maximizing efficiency.

Private businesses not only would loose productivity, but must carry "banked" time as a liability on their books. Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities. More time a private employer allows employees to bank, the lower their company's worth is. Lower your worth is, lower your stock price, the less you can borrow, the higher your interest rates are...etc, etc.

Not neccessarily a Union gained privelege, but a difference between public and private sector finances.

[mongofire_99]

BucksEng91

Thanks bro, right back atcha.

Gotta ask one question about something you said...

From this...

...it's not as if they can be thrown out and replaced with a new organization, or if the people so choose, no union at all.

And on through this...

We can't form a competing organization that better represents our views.

It appears in anti-choice states that unions have a monopoly on jobs.

Am I reading too much into it?

[elkhound]

So using places like Hawaii and Alaska don't skew the cost of living?? Let's see remote, hard to get to, probobly the teamsters fault........

[WRENCH]

I am a little confused by something in the first post. To clarify NJ is not a rtw state,and has not been as long as I can remember. You did miss Md as one though. NJ
is probably one of the most union states in the country, just look at the recent governors election. Mc Greevy was backed by every major union.
ARe unions good , we probably have one of the highest median incomes, salary ratees are near the top, WE work an avg 42 hour work week 10/14 3 off or 24/72 3 off compared to 56 hour work weeks, 24/48 in the rest off the country, we have no residency requirements, we have a very healthy ,inspite of the market state mandotory pension plan (PFRS). By the way the other state plans, public employees, teachers and state police are equally solvent and excellant as well. The richest plans in the country. We have good state health benifits plan that most towns are in all though not required. This is possible by very strong police and fire, and teachers unions and intensive lobbying by them. In reference tothe comment about not getting overtime,wouldnt have that in a union state. Besides that gauarantted by federal labor law any way.What good is getting comptime of in the summer. ya cant eat it or pay the bills with it, and you have to be able to get to take it. Most depts have some sort of minimun manning, how many men do you think are going to be allowed off at one time. With sick days holidays vacations etc that doesnt leave to much time. We work with 5 man minimum shifts with max7,by time you take out all contractral days , and were only allowed to collect up to 100 hrs , there are very few days left. we have people taking comp days from 2 years ago that they couldnt get. To quote a saying from my construction union days "work union , live better".even for those in rtw states your still better off and by forming a better and tighter alliance with other depts in your state and good lobbying you can work to overcome the shortfalls.