Maybe you deal with the wrong union. Most unions bring together you and your co workers and negotiate for you. Not just salary and benefits but transfers, safety, education, pensions, vacations etc...you are not paying for nothing. If you feel your union isnt representing you adequately you can join a different union that you feels focuses on the things you want.

not in a closed shop you cant, i've been with this company 20 years, I don't want to just give up that tenure, I can't just go get another union. at least in a right to work state, I can make my vote against the union by dropping out, they need to earn my dues. i work hard in this shop, and my co-workers go around telling the new guys to slow down, not work too fast because it takes away the overtime on the weekends. they tell them not to learn too many positions because then the company is just going to force them to come in and work when they don't want to. I think that's a joke and I don't stand for it. I had a supervisor walk by and start helping to restack some parts that fell on the floor and our local shop steward got all up in arms and said he's gonna file a greivance because he's taking away our work, when the supervisor was just trying to help out the team.

what do i do?

Last edited by hokiefan 13 years ago

ok you are in same situation lets say in michigan and rtw laws come along. Now you are happy you dont have to pay 1k a year for your membership. But now your salary is cut in half your benefits shrink to none. Pensions are lower, your state now spends less on education. Save that 1000 and but lose so much more. Not all unions are like what you describe, staff taking stupid vacations on union budget etc. I guess if you didnt like the union you were getting into then you shouldnt of joined in the first place.

but what you see is, going right to work doesn't just wipe out what has already been done. it doesn't cut pensions, it doesn't cut pay. the union shop is STILL a union shop operating under the SAME CBA that they had prior to the vote. What it means is I can drop out of the union which makes life just a little bit tougher for the union to pay all those high salaries for their ranking members, contribute ALL that money to political campaigns and lobbying efforts, and whatever else they spend their money on that isn't directly going towards my facility. It means the union is going to have to work harder to keep that membership, fight harder for their members. It keeps it fair, it gives the power to the workers to hold their union accountable. As it stands now, you work there, you do what the union says and you can't do a damn thing about it. You could go file a complaint with the NLRB, but then the union surely isn't going to do shit for your, and likely you'll just get harassed by them in private until you toss your hands up and leave.

edit: and it's a large assumption to say salary gets cut in half and benefits go to zero.

Last edited by hokiefan 13 years ago

No rtw law doesnt directly cut pensions and pay. But in the long run they come down because the union cant bargain like in the past. People can now hire non union to do same work for less pay, so you as union member either have to compromise and take cuts or give up the job.

Now its a race to the bottom in michigan

here some stats from wikipedia this should be an unbiased source...

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states

The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states

The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states,

okay so straight up wages are higher in forced union vs RTW... but how does cost of living compare to that? I did a quick search and found this (from 2005 mind you)

"The average cost of living-adjusted household income in SMSAs in Right to Work states

is $47,320. Average adjusted household income in SMSAs in forced-unionism states is

$46,507. In terms of what their money income can buy, families living in SMSAs in

Right to Work states are $813 better off than families living in SMSAs in forcedunionism states. This evidence refutes Organized Labor’s argument that families are

better off living in states without Right to Work laws."

http://nilrr.org/files/Poulson%20SOL%20Study.pdf

forced union states are primarily higher taxed, left leaning states.

However the Union is still voting on your behalf if your a non union worker and you arent paying into the system which is an "entitlement" that you oppose of! Gaining from a system that you arent paying into! You are your worst nightmare! Gaining from the system without having to abide by the same rules as those who do pay! Tsk tsk!

bolded part: no they can't. Anyone hired into a union shop in a right to work still has to follow the rules set fourth in the CBA. They can't hire them in for less, usually wages are set per the CBA. If they create new positions, it still has to be negotiated with the union. They can't hire someone to work along side a union person for less money since everyone is covered by the CBA in the shop, regardless of their union membership or not. Also reading that statement, the company isn't FORCING anyone to do the work for less pay, a job is a contract between the worker and the company where the worker exchanges their time and effort with the company for an agreed up wages, where the employee has the right to walk away from their side of the table at any time.

Sounds like your problem deals with the individuals that your union let in not what the union is trying to do for the workers. I'm sure they are not training them to do and say that stuff. The wrong people can ruin any organization and make the system look flawed when in turn its the individuals envovled.

Just think of sports agents dealing with college players. Its up to the student athelete to police himself and know what's right and wrong. If he gets caught then he faces stiff penalties for the entire program.

To me it seems like you are not actually in the union but works along side some of them, is this true?