Bullshit Faux Noise anti-union articles:

[Darth Stateworker]

www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/14/teacher-union-bigs-rake-in-dough-despite-budget-cuts-across-education-sector/

Synopsis: The NEA and AFT leaders "make too much" because the average teacher makes $44k and they make almost $500k each.

Completely ignores the fact that both leaders are leading organizations with millions of members, and their salaries pale in comparison to those of corporate executives that run companies with a fraction of the number of employees.

www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/02/are-unions-beginning-to-collapse/

Synopsis: Accusations that union members are "forced" not only to pay union dues, but to make political donations to the unions PAC. The author makes an assertion that he "knows someone" who "forcibly has to pay $30/paycheck to the union PAC."

More bullshit. Closed shops are no longer allowed. No one forces this imaginary friend to be a member of the union. He could be a shop fee payer - but that wouldn't let him freeload, so they can't have that. And Federal law says unions can only get money from members for political activities on a voluntary basis. No one is forcing him to pay that $30/paycheck.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/06/republicans-warn-union-campaign-in-michigan-could-roll-back-reforms/

Synopsis: Michigan unions are trying to put a measure on the ballot that enshrines the right to organize into unions in the state constitution. Republicans argue that it will allow unions to run amok and will cost millions.

We've now reached a hat-trick of bullshit. Their real problem with the legislation is that it prevents them from passing right-to-work-for-less laws, or more aptly named right-to-freeload laws, where union membership is optional - just like it is NOW, under Taft-Hartley, but non-members no longer have to pay shop fees to pay for the representation that Federal law says unions must provide these freeloading non-members.

The interesting thing about each article is that no comments are allowed - so that way, no one can counter the ridiculous claims made in each article and maybe give their uninformed sheeple some legitimate information.

Fox News should be outlawed - like it is in Canada.

[NYS Techie]

I'm not so sure closed shops are outlawed. When I was working for my Dad, in his HVAC engineering company, you HAD to have a union card or you didn't work. I had applied for my card and it was in process, and I was "challenged" by two steamfitters at the entrance of a job site. I explained to them that I was in process, and gave them my father's card so they could verify it.

Try being non-union at a construction site. Try getting on the site at all. You'll get challenged as soon as someone doesn't recognize you, and you'll have to produce your union card.

Incidentally, if you WERE allowed to work on a construction site without being in the union, how long do you think it'd be before you had a little accident? A lot can happen 20 stories up with no cameras and dodgy safety equipment. Just saying...

(And yes, a guy tried to throw me off a roof once, for other reasons, so I know what I'm talking about).

[Darth Stateworker]

Yes, closed shops are by and large outlawed. There some that were grandfathered in, and they are still kicking around, but by and large closed shops are nothing more than a right wing talking point.

On your other point about union construction sites, I understand what you're saying that union members will not take too kindly to non union members being there. However, that doesn't make what those members are doing legal or moral. Besides that - construction itself is a "he-man" alpha male kind of industry. If they weren't fighting over union cards, they'd be fighting over something else. It's just what they do. You almost being tossed off a roof is an example of that.

The other thing is that trade unions - like steamfitters, electricians, etc don't work in the same manner that an employer based union works. Trade unions are almost like contracting firms themselves, and contract their labor out to this builder or that builder. What you see with trade union guys getting angry that this non-union guy showed up on the job site isn't much different than a contractor getting pissed off that the builder he's working for today hired out other work on the same job that he thought he'd get to do to another contractor. Construction is dog eat dog, whether unions are involved or not. It's brutal.

[NYS Techie]

Hang on, you've got a bit of a misconception there.

In the HVAC union at least, there was an International Union, and a Local Union. You had to be in one or the other, period. My father's shop was International Union. This sometimes brought it into conflict with the Local Union; if they went on strike but the International didn't, my father's shop kept working. Local Union members would use razors to slash the tires of the work vans, so we'd have to post people with tire irons or monkey wrenches at the van while a mechanic went in to work. I used to sit out in the truck with a big tire iron; never had any trouble though.

HVAC mechanics don't work for the union, and they don't get paid by the union. They work for a contracting company, which maintains a constant staff. Some of the staff are always on construction, some are always on maintenance contracts. Assignments shift around. If you pissed off my Dad, he'd put you on filter cleaning duty, which meant climbing into a vent, dragging out filthy filters, and hosing them down -- you'd be covered in black silt by the end of the day, it was horrible, but very effective as a motivator not to screw up.

So, if you're an electrician, say, you're working for a contracting company and you're in the union. If a contracting company is a union shop (almost all are) everyone is basically in the union. If someone wants to be a douchebag and not be in the union (why???) he's not going to be working there long. He'll be hated by all the other workers, start having little accidents, and sooner or later he'll leave on his own.

I guess to really get this, you'd have to have worked in that environment... "Legal" or "ethical" have nothing to do with it. You have to be a stand up guy and support the union and your coworkers, or you'll get your ass handed to you in one way or another.

It's totally different in PEF, a soft, weak, white collar union. Here, people get mouthy but that's about it.

By the way, in all fairness to blue collar workers, they may be manly men types, but they generally don't get into fights much. You have to really screw up to get in a fight. But if you're a douche, and people don't like you, there are a million little minor things they can do to show it. "Oh, sorry, man, I thought that circuit wasn't energized, did ya get a shock?" "Oh, man, I'm sorry, did I step on your hand there?" "Whose lunch got dropped in the waste oil tank? You gotta fish that outta there..."

I don't think most people would try to KILL you (although one guy did try to waste me). I think it'd be more along the lines of "Hey, Ed, watch this; I'm gonna fuck with him, ha ha ha".

Honestly, I don't think it'd take much before the person caught a clue and stopped being a douche. It's not like the hints would be subtle...

[sunrunner]

It's kind of a smart argument, full of shit, but smart. Do away with the evil Unions who force their members into membership and save the poor workers! That spin makes my head spin.

[Darth Stateworker]

Techie - remember I come from a mixed family - one side white collar, and one side blue collar. I've seen both sides, and I stick by my opinion as stated on trade unions. Honestly, I don't think we're that far off in our opinions on how they operate. We just express it differently.

[NYS Techie]

But you're completely wrong when you say "Trade unions are almost like contracting firms themselves, and contract their labor out to this builder or that builder". It doesn't work that way at ALL.

You don't work for the union, you work for a contracting company. The CONTRACTING COMPANY contracts you out to construction projects (or maintenance, or lays you off if there's no work and hires you back when the work starts up again).

Savvy? The difference lies in the fact that one union represents people working for many companies, rather than only one company.

Your confusion arises from the fact that a company that isn't busy enough might lay off some workers, and they might pick up project work from some other company while they wait to be re-hired. But this doesn't mean they're working for the union. The union doesn't pay them, and it doesn't charge for their work.

[Darth Stateworker]

You're not interpreting what I'm saying the way I meant it. While trade unions aren't your "employer", they are involved in getting you work. Joe Blow construction calls Local 111 union hall, says he needs 5 guys for a project he's doing with ABC general contracting. Local 111 sends 5 guys as requested. 5 guys do the work Joe Blow wants done. Joe Blow pays them.

This is exactly how the unions for many construction trades work. If your fathers union didn't work that way, that doesn't negate that others do.

Regardless - as this is on the public part of the forum, let's try to stay more on topic. We've kind of went off on a tangent.