Union Busting Is Mortal Sin, Catholic Scholars Say

[tjm190]

It is our system that keeps it that way. we have a system in which a union is voted in by majority vote. I’ve talked with others on this site about it before… There would be another great option but it is not used here…Anybody who wants to be a union member can, regaurdless of employer or majority vote, but discrimination laws would have to be set up. Because if a company would hire these union workers they’d have to go by union rules and payscales with these workers. All places would have to become familiar with union rules under that scenario…Then the minority, be it the pro-unions, or the anti, could have their way…but employers could not discriminate. And I highly doubt that all businessmen would like to go by union rules…yet all prounion people are expected to live with non-union rules and payrates without a majority vote.

Do you ever think about the unfairness in places where somebody may desire to join a union but not be allowed…what about these minorities who may have lost a union organising campain…if the union is voted out, these pro-union people who are the minority do not get to go union so why is it that I always hear about the non-union people who don’t want to be in the union but lost the vote and now have to work in a union shop?..and I’d almost gaurentee the life for the pro-union people who lost the vote and remain at a nonunion shop’s life would be more hell than the other way around.

They are welcome to form a group, call it a union, and talk to their employers regardless of the voting. The employer is welcome to say go away.

 

[tjm190]

Since Bush senior was in office there are federal laws allowing people who do not wish to join the right to only pay a partial dues fee. which isn’t much. My full dues fee is less than $60/month and covers healthcare for 5 and has a pension(negotiated out due to the economy) and covers my representation of upholding the contract.along with alot of other great bennies…imagine what partial is… But they do not have to pay for things such as grievance hearings and stuff like that. They just pay for what the union negotiated for them which is much better than they could negotiate on their own.IMO. Yes these laws even exist in the northeast. It is federal. And in the right-to-work states I suppose they get everything the union bargained for but don’t have to pay dues similar to government handout people’s I assume. They sit there and take everything the union negotiated for them yet keep it all without contributing a dime. Instead of staying home and collecting a government check, they collect a nice fat check from their fellow workers who do contribute. and thenwhine about how bad the union is whilest they live the good life at their union brothers expense. FreeloadersIMO.

The union negotiates benefits for all workers- the same anti-discrimination laws that keep union workers from being fired for being union workers keeps nonunion workers for being paid less. I know I certainly would not join a union if I had the option.

 

[human_being]

HB, you’re talking about legally prosecutable actions. Instead, I’m talking about psychological intimidation so powerful that it violates the Fifth Commandment. The U.S. Gov’t has no statutes forbidding that. Individual companies/corporations could go through the trouble of adjudicating against a hostile atmosphere nevertheless, but that is time-consuming and expensive.

I’m just making the counterpoint about mortal sin. In my region, I will repeat: the mortal sins in the union activity appear to be committed by those representing unions, not representing management. Unions rule here. Everyone else shuts up.

6% of the private sector belong to unions…The unions have not hardly had a say since the pre-Reagan years. That’s a pretty long time. And since then the business community has had it’s time of rule. The unions have shut up for thirty years or more. And as the money shifted from the majority (which is the workers) to the minority which is the business owners and the bankers…we finally have to pay the price…I would think it a good idea to support the workers of this country…for what happens when the unions totally diminish is abuse on the people. …Healthcare is a problem…the pensions are failing. …This is what the business lobby leaves the majority with…next to nothing…homes are being lost. more than ever in the last couple of years…IMO this is the result of anti-union attitudes playing a dominant role…the people need groups to get legislations which look out for their interests…them groups need money unfortunately and when the numbers depleat the money does too.,…and soon no politicians will hear the majority and it’s been that way for tooo long…without the unions the military only fights for tyrants and socialism is only a wink away.

 

[human_being]

I agree, Just look at the UAW… they extorted unsustainable contracts from GM and Chrysler and when the companies could not compete, drove them into bankruptcy and with the help of the Government, now owns those companys… the people who invested in those companies, many of whom are wage earners, lost their investments.

is this also a mortal sin? union greed???

What do you mean they extorted money? A contract was signed by both parties. and nothing was forced illegally. Why do you not hold accountable the high paid company guys who sgned the contract and hired a legal team to go over it before sifgning it…Did the CEO types sign the contract or not…they get paid to look out for the stockholders…why are they not resposible for something they sign which is their job?
When a small business guy signs a contract which was something that sunk him, was it the people he signed the contract with’s fault or his own for signing it…I’d say the blame lies on the company heads for signing the company into bankrupting situations…not the unions for asking for what they asked for…after all even if the company goes under…these guys walk with millions while the rest end up on unemployment.

 

[human_being]

They are welcome to form a group, call it a union, and talk to their employers regardless of the voting. The employer is welcome to say go away.

That’s about a joke, isn’t it. Basically you are saying you are less than and the employer holds all cards and shut up and do as you are told,right??? And should this small group of guys who now just says bverbally that they are union decides to strike…they are fired. There is no written legal contract. That’s great…If money rules and some think that it is fair for employers to just rule because they have it and should not be regulated by such rules…why should workers be regulated by rules preventing them grom being violent…they are both wrong yet one is regulated and the other not…and both have potential to waste alot of time from people’s lives…and life is very valuable. you only have so much of it.

 

[Theophilus777]

I have both worked for unions and union busting companies. The union job was very well paid, however there was an elitist attitude toward those who worked the same trade and yet were non union. The non union employees were disdainfully labeled “scabs,” and were often on the unpleasant side of union protests. Never mind that the individual who is trying to cross the picket line to go to work has a family to feed. My objection to unions(even while I was a member of one) was that they could not see beyond their own prejudicial bias toward themselves. In one sense, the danger is that the union will become the very thing it was formed to counteract–an exploiter. When gone to the extreme, the union becomes democratic only within itself. To all else, it becomes totalitarian, a dictator. In one sense justice is served in that the worker is protected and has a voice. On the other hand, there is the threat that there isn’t much to protect the delicate balance of power between the employer and the employee.

On the other hand, there is Walmart. I worked for Walmart for six months. I was made to watch several “anti-union” videos which explained that Walmart took care of their employees and did not need to unionize. But Walmart does not treat their employees fairly. For example, you are not eligible for benefits unless you work full time. And very few Walmart employees are given full time hours. During the Christmas shopping season everyone was asked to work overtime hours. Once the season was over, in January, everyone who had worked overtime had to take a proportionate cut in hours. If you averaged $50 extra pay, you basically had to give that $50 back to the company by working reduced hours.

My point is not to denigrate unions or Walmart, but to show that sin is on both sides of the fence. Certainly union-busting has the potential to be immoral, but elitist union tyranny can be just as immoral. When love is missing from the equation, how low can we sink? Ultimately it’s the recognition of the “person” which is missing from our world today which might lend some credibility to accusations of any sin whatsoever.

 

[tjm190]

That’s about a joke, isn’t it. Basically you are saying you are less than and the employer holds all cards and shut up and do as you are told,right??? And should this small group of guys who now just says bverbally that they are union decides to strike…they are fired. There is no written legal contract. That’s great…If money rules and some think that it is fair for employers to just rule because they have it and should not be regulated by such rules…why should workers be regulated by rules preventing them grom being violent…they are both wrong yet one is regulated and the other not…and both have potential to waste alot of time from people’s lives…and life is very valuable. you only have so much of it.

Of course not. The small group is free to organize strikes or seek work elsewhere if the employer refuses to cooperate. The business is free to ignore them and try to hire more people. The small group is NOT free to use intimidation against potential new workers.

 

[human_being]

Of course not. The small group is free to organize strikes or seek work elsewhere if the employer refuses to cooperate. The business is free to ignore them and try to hire more people. The small group is NOT free to use intimidation against potential new workers.

The small goup really has no rights whatsoever without a written legal contract…And I highly doubt a business will pay legal fees for a small group to have that right…They’d have to go through the whole union organizing process with the national labor relations board…threatening to take a livlihood and to take a job is also a form of intimidation.and is used very well even at very large union employers. The only way a business should be able to hire new workers should be because there is no union or contract stating that.he can…

 

[Aquinas62]

What do you mean they extorted money? A contract was signed by both parties. and nothing was forced illegally. Why do you not hold accountable the high paid company guys who sgned the contract and hired a legal team to go over it before sifgning it…Did the CEO types sign the contract or not…they get paid to look out for the stockholders…why are they not resposible for something they sign which is their job?
When a small business guy signs a contract which was something that sunk him, was it the people he signed the contract with’s fault or his own for signing it…I’d say the blame lies on the company heads for signing the company into bankrupting situations…not the unions for asking for what they asked for…after all even if the company goes under…these guys walk with millions while the rest end up on unemployment.

yeah, right… don’t sign and everybody goes on strike, costing the company millions of dollars a day, the Company didn’t have a chance either with the government in the unions pocket for years. NLRB always sides with the unions. It isnt a coincedence that the unions give over 80% more to democrats than to republicans. oh and also dont forget that most of those contracts are tied to minimum wage hikes.

Then when, the big three cannot compete with foreign companies, and have to close down plants, thereby losing all those wonderful union jobs, the same people scream and moan about “greedy corporations” Honestly, I just dont get it… btw, I would have given my eye teeth to get work at the local ford plant but they never seem to be hiring, now why would that be???

 

[pnewton]

They sit there and take everything the union negotiated for them yet keep it all without contributing a dime. Instead of staying home and collecting a government check, they collect a nice fat check from their fellow workers who do contribute. and thenwhine about how bad the union is whilest they live the good life at their union brothers expense. FreeloadersIMO.

When freedom is considered freeloading, I then become antiunion. The Catholic Church supports the* right* for workers to organize, not the obligation. But hey, I am in a right to work state where fredoom is valued more than union style socialism. We also do not have the massive unemployment and the government handouts the northern unions have brought upon themselves.

 

[rwoehmke]

yeah, right… don’t sign and everybody goes on strike, costing the company millions of dollars a day, the Company didn’t have a chance either with the government in the unions pocket for years. NLRB always sides with the unions. It isnt a coincedence that the unions give over 80% more to democrats than to republicans. oh and also dont forget that most of those contracts are tied to minimum wage hikes.

You all need to look into the record. Then NLRB has not been Union/worker friendly for over a decade. There is a definite bias against labor.

 

[tjm190]

The small goup really has no rights whatsoever without a written legal contract…And I highly doubt a business will pay legal fees for a small group to have that right…They’d have to go through the whole union organizing process with the national labor relations board…threatening to take a livlihood and to take a job is also a form of intimidation.and is used very well even at very large union employers. The only way a business should be able to hire new workers should be because there is no union or contract stating that.he can…

What rights does the small group want? Again, the group is welcome to send a representative to the employer and threaten with whatever sway they have, striking included. If the business would prefer that to negotiating, ** that is their call**

 

[rwoehmke]

What rights does the small group want? Again, the group is welcome to send a representative to the employer and threaten with whatever sway they have, striking included. If the business would prefer that to negotiating, ** that is their call**

The sway in most circumstances is not much except for a highly skilled person in short supply. Agitators usually find themselves unemployed in fairly short order. In the early years of organizing attempts they often found themselves with broken bones as well. One of my grandfathers was a “black leg” or a strike breaker for Henry Ford. My dad was also involved with the unions when the automobile industry was being organized. He was neither for or against, but he witnessed more violence than most have the stomach for.

 

[Elizabeth502]

HB, I’m not going to challenge you that there still may be injustices and imbalances of power. But I do think that local politics strongly affects how powerful unions are in a given area. Perhaps your accusations are correct for the Northeast.

I think that labor unions have done a service for justice over time, but mostly prior time. In the occupations and areas where they are especially active now, local, state, and federal laws cover many of their legitimate needs (protections). I think they should be examined on a case by case basis. But it is certainly inaccurate for the article to imply that all who oppose unions are committing mortal sins against supposed innocent victims. This shows a great deal of naivete about the political realities of unions: their activism, their influence, their alliances with local media, etc. When unions began they were a grievance and bargaining refuge against exploitation. In my area they often behave today like arrogant special-interest groups with powerful friends, despite being amply covered in their rights by in-place laws and regulations. I don’t see them in those cases as the underdog, but rather the powerholders with a capital P.

 

[stinkcat_14]

oh and also dont forget that most of those contracts are tied to minimum wage hikes.

Can you provide some evidence of this?All of the union contracts that I have seen don’t mention the minimum wage.

 

[Aquinas62]

most standard union contracts state that if the minimum wage goes up, their wages go up accordingly. at least that has been my understanding

 

[stinkcat_14]

most standard union contracts state that if the minimum wage goes up, their wages go up accordingly. at least that has been my understanding

I have never seen that language in a union contract and I have looked at several of them. You may want to consider the possibility that your understanding is wrong. Or at least investigate where you got this particular idea.

 

[Aquinas62]

fair enough, I will research it.

 

[human_being]

yeah, right… don’t sign and everybody goes on strike, costing the company millions of dollars a day, the Company didn’t have a chance either with the government in the unions pocket for years. NLRB always sides with the unions. It isnt a coincedence that the unions give over 80% more to democrats than to republicans. oh and also dont forget that most of those contracts are tied to minimum wage hikes.

Then when, the big three cannot compete with foreign companies, and have to close down plants, thereby losing all those wonderful union jobs, the same people scream and moan about “greedy corporations” Honestly, I just dont get it… btw, I would have given my eye teeth to get work at the local ford plant but they never seem to be hiring, now why would that be???

Because the same people who feed you your union hating lies also have had aalot of control for the past thirty years…and they prefer foreign non-union sklaves making money for them as opposed to american auto workers…they prefer those with no backbone nor lefgs to stand on to defend themseelvlves…and they prefer a system in which credit is much important to hide the fact that we are not making money anymore than actually paying people wages to afford things with cash…The UAW wanted to have a say in what they make in the 1950’s. They wanted to make volkswagen-like cars…but the company said no…after nearly biting the bullet. they finally listen. If you are so concerned about foreign company’s stealing your work, why not advocate for the unions for they are about the only ones who advocate for american workers. The rest advocate for the bankers who only want people without a voice…slaves or as close as they can get to it.

 

[human_being]

You all need to look into the record. Then NLRB has not been Union/worker friendly for over a decade. There is a definite bias against labor.

I think they have gone years without even having all of the slots filled who take care of the cases. Bush surely didn’t care. Obama nominated to fill 2 of three open seats on the board in march:
jonesday.com/president-obama-makes-important-recess-appointments-to-nlrb-eeoc-03-29-2010/

Three open seats on a five man board. How long? I’ll find out…just another legal slowdown from the GOP on the working people. I’m sure work was just a bit backed up…just a bit.

And this article says that no more than three can be from the same political party by tradition…so the argument that they are always for the unions is debunked:
lawmemo.com/blog/2009/04/president_to_no.html

They have only had 2 members of the 5 since 2007.
wyattemployment.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/white-house-announces-nominations-of-three-members-by-ed-hopson-and-george-miller/