"MoPar Man" <MoPar (AT) Man (DOT) com> wrote

Simple. The union existed PREVIOUSLY.

You see it works this way.

A company starts up operations and treats it's employees fairly.
Union organizers attempt to unionize, but because the employer
is treating the workers fairly, there is no support for unionization
and the unionization effort fails.

Years pass. A new set of beancounters take over the company.
Now, the company lets working conditions go to pot and the pay
stagnate. Union organizers now find a receptive audience among
the workers. The workers vote to unionize.

Once that happens, the game is entirely changed. The company is
now subject to the NLRA. They can't just bust the union by allowing
the workers to go on strike then hiring a bunch of scabs - if they could,
there wouldn't be any point in unionizing in the first place.

If the company really and truly wants to get rid of the union then
there is a simple, obvious, and easy way to do so. They simply
start treating their employees fairly. After a number of years of doing
this, the workers will then start regarding the union as useless and
ineffective - and can then be persuaded to de-unionize.

It's happened plenty of times before. Many companies have had
working units who successfully voted to de-unionize.

The striking workers aren't stupid. They know that if they make impossible
demands that the company will go out of business and they will all lose
their
jobs. Keep in mind that when the automakers tanked, the unions several
times voted in wage concessions. The fact of the matter is that BOTH
Chrysler and GM got the wage concessions from their unions that they asked
for. Neither of those companies went into bankruptcy as a result of the
unions - both went into bankruptcy as a result of SMALL GROUPS of
investors who wern't happy with what the MAJORITY of investors
agreed to give up.

If you look at companies who have historically had a lot of problems
with their unions you will, in fact, find a pattern. The pattern is that
companies with corporate cultures of exploiting the non-management
workers have the most problem with unions. This includes things like
executive salaries that are beyond all reasonable belief, utter disinterest
in employee suggestions on how to better run the company, outsourcing
workers when it makes no economic or logical sense, etc.

It is ALSO because of how those companies WERE MANAGED. There
have been an ENORMOUS NUMBER of auto industry observers over
the years who have repeatedly said that Chrysler, Ford and GM absolutely
must figure out how to profitably build and sell small economy cars. Toyota
and Honda can do it - but of course, their workers health insurance has been
paid for by their government. That's government subsidization of an
industry
in anyone's playbook. So, why wern't tariffs raised, as the law requires
when
it's clear that a foreign government is subsidizing a foreign competitor?

GM, Ford and Chrysler could have been beating the drum for the last 20 years
in favor of nationalized healthcare the way that Honda and Toyota get it.
But
instead, the owners of those companies have been doing exactly the
opposite -
they fund as many Republicans as they can find who vote against it, as well
as as many Republicans as they can find who delay and vote against punative
tariffing.

No they won't because what is going to effectively happen is most of the
people buying new cars who insist on buying domestics, rather than imports,
are going to look at Ford vehicles first, precisely because they are
concerned
about longevity of the company. So, Ford will be OK. Chrysler will
gradually
end up becoming a vendor of Fiat vehicles, and what happens to GM is
anyone's guess.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

That makes little sense. If workers do not wish to work then any
contract is null and void. A company should be free to find someone who
will work. Companies most certainly can fire anyone who refuses to show
up for work and hire non union workers especially in right to work
states. Happens all the time where union workers who refuse to show up
for work are fired and replaced.

"miles" <nope (AT) nopers (DOT) com> wrote

Obviously. Since if the workers are under contract they are obligated
to work, not showing up for work is a violation of the labor contract.

You are forgetting that the company is obligated under the labor
contract that they signed to negotiate with the union on these sorts
of matters. If an employee doesn't show up there's a grievance
process the management must follow and if the employee refuses
to participate then they will end up fired.

If the union is striking then it's a little different. For starters, how
do you run the company when nobody shows up?

Companies most certainly can fire anyone who refuses to show
The NLRA trumps state law, as all federal law supersedes state law
under the US Constitution. I know you feel that your right, but your
quite wrong. Yes, an individual union member who doesn't show up
when a strike is not in force can be disciplined. But the reality is that
when business is booming, a company cannot replace it's entire workforce
in one day, which is why the threat of a strike, and a strike, is effective.

In a down economy the dynamics are a lot different. But you will
notice that in down economies, unions rarely strike, and those that
do frequently lose.

Furthermore, it depends on what kind of strike is in force. If the strike
is for a health issue - such as workers striking to protest unsafe
working conditions - then it's not just a contract dispute, it's illegal
for the employer to permanently replace them.

Essentially, the only way an employer can get rid of a striking union
is if they fire every employee, all at the same time, who participates
in the strike, and replace them. This is why you typically don't see
unions get much foothold in industries where the workers are basically
ignorant warm bodies, working at jobs that anyone could do. (ie: pumping
gas, flipping burgers, etc.) It's also why you don't see unions calling for
strikes where the majority of the workers in the union wouldn't support
a strike.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

It's not open ended as you seem to feel. A company has the right to
hire workers and negotiate with the union at the same time. They can
also choose to fire any worker who doesn't show up. You seem to imply a
company must sit idle without workers indefiantly until a new contract
is agreed upon. They do not. The power of the union comes from the
belief that a company can't find enough non union workers during a
walkout strike. Sometimes thats true, sometimes its not. A risk the
union takes and sometimes fails at.

Phelps fired 100's of workers at it's mines when the union walked out in
the 70's. They refused to give into the unions demands. The mines kept
running using non union employees hired on during the failed negotiation
talks.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). Where the
Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if* you're
going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these days).

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Jul 2, 5:48*am, Bill Putney <b... (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote:
Bill, Bill, Article VI:

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land,
and judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Supremacy Clause. Quite well known.

erschroedinger (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:
"...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding."

You apparently stopped reading before you got to that part.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Jul 3, 7:04*pm, Bill Putney <b... (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote:
Yes, it means regardless of what the constitution of any state, or the
laws of any state, say to the contrary, federal laws take precedence.
Problems parsing?

erschroedinger (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:
OK - like, Wow! It wasn't a parsing problem. I actually thought the
word "notwithstanding" meant the exact opposite of what it actually
means. I admit I was wrong on this just like I would have expected you
to if you had been wrong.

Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of
Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote

Frankly, it's nothing more than an academic exercise to discuss the US
Constitution because the fact is that modern US law is based on the
Constitution PLUS the 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions that
have modified..I-mean-clarified.. it's original meaning. ;-)

Such as for example the US Constitution permits states to succeed from
the Union, did you know that? Nothing in it, or it's amendments, outright
prohibits it. However we have the Civil War that tells us different ;-)

If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded
as a terrorist document.

Ted