The problem is that if you opt out, you would theoretically lose all the benefits the union has fought for. It wouldn't be too fair to reap all the benefits but not pay into the union. That's why there are many unions where it's impossible to opt out, or you still have to pay a smaller percentage to union dues.
I know in Illinois, if you're a teacher but opt out of the union, you still have to pay 85% of the union dues anyways. If people opt out, they are taking all the benefits gained over the decades without the sacrifice.
I know in Illinois, if you're a teacher but opt out of the union, you still have to pay 85% of the union dues anyways. If people opt out, they are taking all the benefits gained over the decades without the sacrifice.
So how is this fair? If you opt out and you don't gain any of the benefits, why do you still have to pay for them?
What can we do if we don't support the union? What if we believe the union is abusing it's power to make money?
Should workers be allowed to opt out of their union contract?
I may actually agree with you on something, weird.
Unions should be optional, they should be legal beyond the shadow of a doubt but it shouldn't be something forced on you.
What if we believe the union is abusing it's power to make money?
Or to lower the quality of public education, not only do they fight to keep sub-par teachers simply because they have seniority but I feel like they take the focus away from the kids.
So how is this fair? If you opt out and you don't gain any of the benefits, why do you still have to pay for them?
No, the problem is that if you opt out you still gain all the benefits (collective bargaining, tenure, benefits, 401K, etc). It would be like getting a service done at your house, then opting out of paying after the work is done. You can't take the benefits without paying. The unions have worked for decades to give teachers a somewhat living wage and great pension benefits. To opt out of the union would mean you're accepting all the work they've done, but not wanting to pay for it (or for any future work).
Unions provide benefits for the workers but cause problems for the companies due to lawsuits. That's why they are outsourcing their work to China an India. If we take out Unions, we would have a better economy, but at the same time, a large working class. Hm. If only we had both.
If we take out Unions, we would have a better economy, but at the same time, a large working class.
I agree that both of those would be great things for America.
Unions are outdated, and to powerful. They are the product of an era where working conditions were horrible and people had to band together to right the wrongs of the workplace. However, we are now in the 21 century, and there are so many laws in place protecting the worker (granted, many of them are because of unions, but still...) that unions are no longer needed, in such strength to protect the average worker. I give Kudos to anyone who does not join a union.
Unions had a purpose in the past, but now they're hurting the economy because you can't fire somebody who isn't doing a good job, and because they make us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. I think people should be allowed to join labor unions if they want to, but they shouldn't be required to join or pay union dues if they don't join.
I agree that both of those would be great things for America.
Unions are outdated, and to powerful. They are the product of an era where working conditions were horrible and people had to band together to right the wrongs of the workplace. However, we are now in the 21 century, and there are so many laws in place protecting the worker (granted, many of them are because of unions, but still...) that unions are no longer needed, in such strength to protect the average worker. I give Kudos to anyone who does not join a union.
Yes, but humans rights could easily be violated. I can't preach to you since you are already a Libertarian. I think that lawsuits are just way to frequent and Unions should stop taking advantage of them. They can have it all they want, but they should have limits, just like the company.
If you make it harder for the Unions to sue, but harder for the company to violate human rights, you would be fine.
Well here in Wisconsin we are certainly having some union issues. I am all for unions being voluntary but unfortunately unions now are as bad as big business was when they were formed. They care more about keeping the dues coming in then what is good for the workers.
Sometimes unions are worse than better (and often are) - like the Commander said, they should be voluntary. Sometimes the unions can take more than they offer to give - they're parasites.
It wouldn't be too fair to reap all the benefits but not pay into the union.
No - it's more like this.
I paint your house without asking you whether you would like it or not, then I demand that you give me a percentage of your wages. Obviously, I can't un-paint your house, so what do I do and what do you do?
Unions are a waste. You can go decades and not need your unions to do anything for you. They get a pay raise for you but it all goes to your union dues. Ask all the out of work UAW workers in Detroit how great their unions are now that their jobs are in places like Mexico.
Said human rights violations are illegal, Kevin. They cannot be violated period, with or without a union. Companies that would do that wouldn't get workers to begin with, and would be forced to shut down with the onslaught of the US government and people simply choosing to work elsewhere.
Unions are unnecessary for the simple fact that if you don't like it, unlike in years past, you can go work somewhere else.
The only exception I see are in service jobs such as garbage disposal (though they should be barred from strike), and heavy and difficult blue collar work such as oil refineries or steel factories.
