Is collective bargaining a right?

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

This is a simple yes or no question- not an invitation for political discussion. I'm just wondering if you think collective bargaining is a right, similar to say, the right to bear arms or the right to a speedy trial.

 

 

ETA: Clarification- Yes, collective bargaining is pretty much the reason to form unions, so if collective bargaining is banned, there would be little use for unions. I'm not asking here if unions are good or bad. I'm simply asking if you think we have the right as citizens of the United States to form whatever type of group necessary (union or otherwise) for the purpose of bargaining collectively with an employer.

 

 

EDITED AGAIN to add: What I really want to know is if people think that collective bargaining or forming unions for the purpose of collective bargaining is a right as opposed to a privilege.

Edited March 6, 2011 by thescrappyhomeschooler

[BigMamaBird]

Can I ask a blazingly stupid question?

 

What is Collective Bargaining? I grew up in a heavily Union town but I have no idea.:001_huh:

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs.[1]

 

 

This is the definition according to Wikipedia.

[Sevilla]

Can I ask a blazingly stupid question?

 

What is Collective Bargaining? I grew up in a heavily Union town but I have no idea.:001_huh:

It means the right to organize/join a union. It doesn't mean everyone must be in one, but that if a group of employees feel the need for one they can do that without losing their jobs/being harrassed/etc...

[6packofun]

It means the right to organize/join a union. It doesn't mean everyone must be in one, but that if a group of employees feel the need for one they can do that without losing their jobs/being harrassed/etc...

 

No, it doesn't, and this impression is why the current issue is so muddied, IMO. lol Collective bargaining is something that unions DO, it has nothing to do with the right to organize one.

[KristinaBreece]

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs.[1]

 

 

This is the definition according to Wikipedia.

 

If unions are not to do those things, what would be left for them to do?

 

ETA: Not a smart-@ss remark... it's a real question. Isn't that what unions are for?

Edited March 6, 2011 by KristinaBreece

[Renee in NC]

A right? No. Necessary? Yes, in the past they were very necessary to make sure that workplaces were safe, wages were fair across the board, etc. Since we now have laws that provide these protections across the board, unions are no longer necessary.

 

Should they be allowed to exist? Sure. But employers should also have the right to walk away once a contract expires without being "held hostage" by unions.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Yes, collective bargaining is pretty much the reason to form unions, so if collective bargaining is banned, there would be little use for unions. I'm not asking here if unions are good or bad. I'm simply asking if you think we have the right as citizens of the United States to form whatever type of group necessary (union or otherwise) for the purpose of bargaining collectively with an employer.

[Jen in PA]

Collective bargaining assumes that one owns one's own labor and has the right to make negotiations for the value of that labor in a group context as opposed to a one-by-one context.

[Joker]

No. I agree with Renee. It was once necessary but is not anymore.

[Renee in NC]

Yes, collective bargaining is pretty much the reason to form unions, so if collective bargaining is banned, there would be little use for unions. I'm not asking here if unions are good or bad. I'm simply asking if you think we have the right as citizens of the United States to form whatever type of group necessary (union or otherwise) for the purpose of bargaining collectively with an employer.

 

Yes, they absolutely have that right. Employers should also have the right to ignore them and replace the workers with new workers if they so choose (assuming the contract has expired.) It seems that in some states they don't have that right!

[Guest Cindie2dds]

nm

Edited March 6, 2011 by Cindie2dds

[KristinaBreece]

Yes, collective bargaining is pretty much the reason to form unions, so if collective bargaining is banned, there would be little use for unions. I'm not asking here if unions are good or bad. I'm simply asking if you think we have the right as citizens of the United States to form whatever type of group necessary (union or otherwise) for the purpose of bargaining collectively with an employer.

 

 

Ok, thanks for the clarification!

[pqr]

Perhaps you should ask is it a right for PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES after all that is the question being debated across this nation.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Perhaps you should ask is it a right for PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES after all that is the question being debated across this nation.

 

Yes, but in the end, the state governments are after all, employers, even if their funding comes from tax revenues. I'm asking if employees of any nature have the right to bargain collectively.

[Heather in WI]

Yes, but in the end, the state governments are after all, employers, even if their funding comes from tax revenues.

 

I think they're quite different.

[Audrey]

Your question is confusingly worded. Since the function of a union is to bargain on behalf of the union collective, to say that collective bargaining should NOT be a right is to say that unionizing should not be a right.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Your question is confusingly worded. Since the function of a union is to bargain on behalf of the union collective, to say that collective bargaining should NOT be a right is to say that unionizing should not be a right.

 

Okay, I understand what you are saying. What I really want to know is if people think that collective bargaining or forming unions for the purpose of collective bargaining is a right as opposed to a privilege.

[cdrumm4448]

I do not believe it's a right. I also don't think it should be a privilege for government workers. They are collectively bargaining against the tax payer.

[lea1]

I do not believe it's a right. I also don't think it should be a privilege for government workers. They are collectively bargaining against the tax payer.

 

:iagree: When employees join together to bargain collectively, they are negotiating with their employer to determine how the profits of a company will be divided up. How much will go towards benefits, how much towards salary, how much towards reinvestment, etc.

 

When government workers join together to bargain collectively, their unions pay large sums of money to politicians. The politicians use that money to get re-elected and then they provide raises and lavish benefits from tax payer money to the union members. So, the politician gets lots of money, ensuring their re-election, the union members get higher and higher salaries and benefits and the tax payer foots the bill and usually does not realize what is happening behind the scenes and that he is not being fairly represented in the matter.

 

In my opinion, that should not be allowed.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Lea in OK

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

:iagree: When employees join together to bargain collectively, they are negotiating with their employer to determine how the profits of a company will be divided up. How much will go towards benefits, how much towards salary, how much towards reinvestment, etc.

 

When government workers join together to bargain collectively, their unions pay large sums of money to politicians, who use that money to stay in office and provide raises and lavish benefits from tax payer money to the union members so they can stay in office.

 

In my opinion, that should not be allowed.

 

That is a whole different topic. Corporations also pay large sums of money to politicians, who use that money to benefit corporations. Behavior of corrupt individuals and institutions is not the question. I'm merely looking at this from the perspective of employees' rights. Public or private sector makes no difference in my view.

[Amy in NH]

Yes, they absolutely have that right. Employers should also have the right to ignore them and replace the workers with new workers if they so choose (assuming the contract has expired.) It seems that in some states they don't have that right!

 

:iagree:

[justasque]

... in the past they were very necessary to make sure that workplaces were safe, wages were fair across the board, etc. Since we now have laws that provide these protections across the board, unions are no longer necessary...

 

I think that coal miners in West Virginia and similar areas would argue otherwise.

[Heather in WI]

When employees join together to bargain collectively, they are negotiating with their employer to determine how the profits of a company will be divided up. How much will go towards benefits, how much towards salary, how much towards reinvestment, etc.

 

When government workers join together to bargain collectively, their unions pay large sums of money to politicians. The politicians use that money to get re-elected and then they provide raises and lavish benefits from tax payer money to the union members. So, the politician gets lots of money, ensuring their re-election, the union members get higher and higher salaries and benefits and the tax payer foots the bill and usually does not realize what is happening behind the scenes and that he is not being fairly represented in the matter.

 

In my opinion, that should not be allowed.

 

:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am not sure if unions are as big of a problem as corporate welfare. I agree that there are some problems sometimes with unions but I don't think it is wise to take away the right to unionize even though it appears we don't need unions anymore. Who is to say that we do not return to the days when they would just drop of a dead or injured workers on the front lawn. If it happened before then it most certainly can happen again under the right circumstances IMHO.

 

For a real eye opener I suggest googling Jon Stewart's recent show on teachers' unions compared to CEOs and such. You could find it at comedycentral.com. Jon Stewart may be a comedian but he is very insightful and the clips that he shows from the pundits tell it all IMHO. He did make me think twice about this whole issue.

 

I also suspect that corporations have a lot more power and influence over politicians than unions.

[lea1]

That is a whole different topic. Corporations also pay large sums of money to politicians, who use that money to benefit corporations. Behavior of corrupt individuals and institutions is not the question. I'm merely looking at this from the perspective of employees' rights. Public or private sector makes no difference in my view.

 

I think it makes a huge difference and corruption is not the issue at all. When unions bargain with companies, everyone is represented. When unions bargain with politicians, tax payers are not represented and are most often not even aware that their interests are not being represented. If tax payers were represented, we would not be having the issue we are today.

 

Additionally, I believe people should be allowed to bargain collectively but I do not believe that everyone who works for a company that has a union should be forced to be in that union against their will.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I think it makes a huge difference and corruption is not the issue at all. When unions bargain with companies, everyone is represented. When unions bargain with politicians, tax payers are not represented and are most often not even aware that their interests are not being represented. If tax payers were represented, we would not be having the issue we are today.

 

Additionally, I believe people should be allowed to bargain collectively but I do not believe that everyone who works for a company that has a union should be forced to be in that union against their will.

 

In theory, the tax payers are represented by the people they vote into office.

[Chaqar]

I think they're quite different.

 

You are not alone!

 

According to FDR:

 

"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

 

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

 

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that 'under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.'"

[OrganicAnn]

Just a reminder that when people say that governmental workers should not be allowed to collectively bargain, that means police and firefighters too.

 

I think the word "right" is a little loaded. If you asked if it should be "legal" to collectively bargain, then you might have gotten a different response from a few people. "Privilege" also seems to me is something that is earned. How would one go about earning that privilege?

[lea1]

I also suspect that corporations have a lot more power and influence over politicians than unions.

 

Any person or entity that donates tons of money to politicians has a lot of power and influence over them. This does not mean that the people who have been hired to do the work of our government should be allowed to unionized and pay tons of money to the politicians so that their interests are put above the interests of the tax payers and the country as a whole.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, so to speak.

[lea1]

In theory, the tax payers are represented by the people they vote into office.

 

I agree that in theory this is the case. Unfortunately theory and reality are not even close on this one. I think the quote by FDR says it all, and it says a lot that it came from him.

[Renee in NC]

I think that coal miners in West Virginia and similar areas would argue otherwise.

 

Coal mining is a dangerous job. The only way to make it "safe" is to not do it. Most jobs have some element of danger and the law works to reduce those risks, but it isn't possible to eliminate them.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, they absolutely have that right. Employers should also have the right to ignore them and replace the workers with new workers if they so choose (assuming the contract has expired.) It seems that in some states they don't have that right!

 

that. :)

 

:iagree:

 

even if the right is abused by corrupt people, it's still a right.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Any person or entity that donates tons of money to politicians has a lot of power and influence over them. This does not mean that the people who have been hired to do the work of our government should be allowed to unionized and pay tons of money to the politicians so that their interests are put above the interests of the tax payers and the country as a whole.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, so to speak.

 

I still think the much bigger concern that affects taxpayers even more is corporate influence IMHO.

 

Again Jon Stewart's show from Thursday 3/3/11 is quite an eye opener IMO. It really puts this whole thing into perspective.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Coal mining is a dangerous job. The only way to make it "safe" is to not do it. Most jobs have some element of danger and the law works to reduce those risks, but it isn't possible to eliminate them.

 

Yes but have had recent examples of egregious violations of safety guidelines with mining in the our country such as the Massey mine disaster:(.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I also forgot to mention that an even bigger problem is politicians who let themselves be unduly influenced to make unwise decisions:D

 

OTOH I agree that sometimes unions go overboard. For example, locally our police and firefighters unions are outrageous in their demands despite the fact that the city has the highest income tax rate around as well as huge budget shortfalls with many residents not doing well in this economy. I still hesitate though to say that unions should not be able to exist since IMO that could be a dangerous precedent. I think there should be some means to settle disputes in a way that is fairer to both parties since locally arbitration seems to favor the union.

Edited March 6, 2011 by priscilla

[Paige]

Yes, they absolutely have that right. Employers should also have the right to ignore them and replace the workers with new workers if they so choose (assuming the contract has expired.) It seems that in some states they don't have that right!

 

:iagree: The workers can organize if they want to and the employers can fire the lot of them if they don't like what is going on. I think there is equal risk to the employers and employees- the employees risk losing their jobs, and the employers risk not being able to find quality people to work for them- if everyone is reasonable, they should be able to work it out with both sides being happy.

 

I'm unsure if government workers should be able to strike. What if military servicemen decided they are being overworked and underpaid? Which is beyond true. They can't strike without being arrested and dismissed. I don't think all normal government employees should be arrested for not doing the jobs they have contracts to do, but I think the government should have much more leeway to replace workers who aren't doing essential jobs.

[justasque]

Coal mining is a dangerous job. The only way to make it "safe" is to not do it. Most jobs have some element of danger and the law works to reduce those risks, but it isn't possible to eliminate them.

 

You can't make it 100% safe, but you can make it safer by reducing risks. And collective bargaining is one way that coal miners can compel their employers to spend the money to make the mines safer. And groups of workers, such as unions, can also organize their members to advocate for legislation requiring safety measures (and enforcement of these requirements). When the law works to reduce risks, it's often because employee advocacy groups have worked hard to get such laws passed.

 

I'm not saying it's a perfect system. Just that I can see some situations where, if I was a worker in certain conditions, I'd want to have the option of collective bargaining available to me.

[Renee in NC]

Yes but have had recent examples of egregious violations of safety guidelines with mining in the our country such as the Massey mine disaster:(.

 

Violations of safety guidelines wouldn't be stopped by unions anymore than they are stopped by the gov't. Unfortunately, sometimes management takes a "risk management" approach that is akin to gambling. If they aren't going to follow the laws that are already in place, they aren't going to follow the union contract either.

[Renee in NC]

You can't make it 100% safe, but you can make it safer by reducing risks. And collective bargaining is one way that coal miners can compel their employers to spend the money to make the mines safer. And groups of workers, such as unions, can also organize their members to advocate for legislation requiring safety measures (and enforcement of these requirements). When the law works to reduce risks, it's often because employee advocacy groups have worked hard to get such laws passed.

 

I'm not saying it's a perfect system. Just that I can see some situations where, if I was a worker in certain conditions, I'd want to have the option of collective bargaining available to me.

 

Of course! I am not against people having the option of collective bargaining at all. Employee advocacy groups are fine, too. As long as the company has the option of *not* entering into a contract without repercussions (other than they have to find new employees) then it is fine. People have to make their own risk decisions and companies have to make their own profit decisions.

 

NC is a right to work state. A couple of years ago, a manaufacturing plant with a union raised the cost of the health benefits dramatically. At the time, the economy was crashing and people all over the country were being laid off, having their wages cut, etc. The employees decided to strike (refused to sign the new contract.) The employer said fine, and hired new employees.

 

In some situations, it is in the company's best interest to work with a union. In others, they don't have a choice. In some situations, employees would rather not pay the union dues (so they don't want to join the union) but they don't have a choice.

 

The control a union has over an industry and/or a company is what bothers me. Companies can *fail* because a union refuses to give - unless, of course, the gov't steps in to bail the company out.:glare: Forcing a company to pay high wages (despite a failing economy) or pay a large part of health benefits or pay large pensions despite common sense or current economic reality is not a right.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm unsure if government workers should be able to strike. What if military servicemen decided they are being overworked and underpaid? Which is beyond true. They can't strike without being arrested and dismissed. I don't think all normal government employees should be arrested for not doing the jobs they have contracts to do, but I think the government should have much more leeway to replace workers who aren't doing essential jobs.

 

Yes, even gvt workers -as citizens- have a right to collective bargaining and striking. Usually the reality of the way the situation plays out isn't as cut n dried as the what-if scenarios...private companies will be ready to hire them, or they create their own businesses, or change careers, etc.

 

If our military went on strike, then our leaders probably really screwed up [more than usual]. I'd put more faith in our servicemen at that point than our leaders. ;)

[dirty ethel rackham]

Gee, I have never been allowed collective bargaining in all my working years. Neither has my husband. I don't think it is a right. None of my family members have ever been allowed this either.

[Murmer]

I think that a lot of people have worked hard to have the right to collective bargain using unions. Just as other groups have fought for their civil rights so did those seeking unions and collective bargaining. That said I don't think it is an all inclusive right, basically because there is collective bargaining as a right that doesn't mean everyone must listen or be involved. I have the right to drink alcohol, I choose not to and support places that also support non alcohol imbibing, I have chosen not to indulge in my right...but I also don't have the right to walk into a bar and tell people there that they shouldn't be drinking and take away their alcohol. Rights have limits.

[FO4UR]

I didn't answer the poll.

 

Should unions have collective bargaining rights as they exist today? No

 

Should we do away with unions altogether? No

 

 

My dh worked in a "right to work" state in a place with a strong union presence. The union harms that company (and the people who work there, by default) - no two ways about it. The union is new tyrant.

 

 

I think if we simply remove unions, we'd have a new tyrant.

 

There must be a 3rd option.