🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <slrn4htg3e.9s9.fche@elastic.elastic.org>, fche@elastic.elastic.org says...
>
>In article <4flc4f$a72@aphex.direct.ca>, craig skelton wrote:
>> [...] But seriously, you 
>> capitalist Adam Smiths out there had better realize that UNIONIZATION is
>> a right of an employee, and you had better learn to like it. [...]
>
>Of course unionizing is perfectly all right.  I, an evil Smith wannabe,
>only complain under two conditions.  The first is that when unions elect
>to strike, instead of merely leaving, they often choose to turn the dispute
>into a violent confrontation with their replacements.  The second is that
>employees who want nothing to do with a union are in some jurisdictions
>forced to be members, pay for them, and thence experience undeserved
>penalties in cases of lockouts.

You make it sound like unions turn around and say... gee... I think
we will have a strike.  This is simply not true.  They have to go
through the collective bargaining procedures, they have to conform
to the labour relations code in the jurisdiction - which in Alberta
does include a cooling off period after negotiations come to a stand
still.  They have to have the strike vote - and finally, they have 
to provide notification to the employer and the LRB and finally they
are in a position to strike.

No one, wants to go on strike.  It is costly, disruptive, etc.  You 
have also made the suggestion that they should just leave.  This shows
you clearly have no idea what the principles of collective bargaining are.

Finally, you have chosen to talk about the costs to individual regarding
lockouts.  Lockouts are imposed by an EMPLOYER - not the union.  But what
I really want to know, is what you have to day about the benefits these
people receive from the implementation and the administration of a 
collective agreement which oversees their benefits and working conditions.
These people benefit from the collective agreement, they have access
to all the provisions of a collective agreement - they should
help to pay for the cost of maintaining and administering that
collective agreement.

>
>> You need to go back to the library and study 
>> an issue called RIGHT TO WORK... You don't even understand that.
>
>Interesting - my understanding of the somewhat misleadingly named issue
>`right to work' dealt with laws that, shudder, allow employees in a
>union shop to work there without belonging to (and paying for) the union.
>It's a `right to work in spite of the union'.

Right to work is nothing more than a definition of the right
to freeload.  There are a number of different types of shops and
there are very few closed shops any longer and these are generally
found in particular skilled occupations - where certification of
some sort or another is required.  There are shops where once you
are hired you must become a member of the union and pay dues and
this is contained in the particular collective agreement that both
the UNION and the EMPLOYER sign.  Finally, if you have some sort of
religious reason for not belonging to a union - you can have your
dues sent to a charitable organization.  

Clearly the Rand decision and the recent RTW report completed
in Alberta state that people derive benefits from being 
covered under a collective agreement and if benefit is received, 
individuals are required to contribute to the maintenance of the
agreement and its administration.

If they don't like the union's policies, they are always free to
run for elected office and change the union policies.  They are
free to start a decertification drive.  What they are not free to 
do, however, is free-load.