Oklahoma is the 22nd State to Pass a "Right to Work" Law

[frazzledspice]

and the first state to do so since 1986.

The bill passed 54% to 46%.

Commercials airing in favor of the law said, "The states around us that have right to work laws have higher wages." (I didn't see any proof for this allegation! I'm sure it's probably not true of Arkansas--it might be for Texas, but I'm certain most of the businesses that moved there didn't do so because it was a right-to-work state, but rather for the large available pools of labor in the cities.)

Firemen, policeman, and teachers aired commercials warning people not to pass the law.

Do you think that unions serve a purpose in our society? If we didn't have unions, would wages and benefits ultimately sink into the cellar?

Do companies just move their blue collar jobs to Mexico and Asia, so that unions are powerless anyway?

What do you think?

I think it's kind of sad. Being 52, we started careers in the 1970's and 1980's, when companies had consciences. Corporate America isn't nearly as kind and gentle as it was 20 years ago, and I think that's a great tragedy. It cares more about stockholders than workers in its wild pursuit of beefing up the bottom line.

I was only in a union once in my life, when I worked for New American Library, a NY publishing company. Our medical benefits were tied to union dues, so even if there was a right to work law, we would have all joined.

But if unions are no longer the consciences of conscience-less corporations, who will be?

[Joubert[$]]

Unions ceased being the conscience and protector of the working class decades ago.

Unions now exist as big business themselves, with as much excess and abuse as any Fortune 500 organization. Unions are responsible for unrealistic wage expectations, higher costs and the resultant higher prices, which drain the economy.

A simple look at the automotive industry shows that the unions destroyed the Big Three and Tier One suppliers. The same holds true in any industry.

Someone has to tell me the purpose of a union beyond trying to democratize an organization that is not a democracy - but a fiefdom. Don't argue that it should be a democracy, it shouldn't. Equity goes to owners, not to everyone who plays.

As much as I hate government interference in the marketplace, I almost wish we could destroy the union movement once and for all. They bring nothing but destruction to corporations. If a management team is astute, they can stave off the shrinking margin for a while, but once in, unions drive wages to an impractical point and insist on the "workers sharing the wealth". Want to share the wealth? We're a society that rewards innovation. Go start your own company, work 16 hour days, leave it to your kids and maybe it'll fly. Don't expect equity or above market wages because the union wields human capital power. Bah.

[KateTPZ]

I live in a right-to-work state - and not surprisingly one where unions are uncommon. The issue of unions is one I have mixed feelings about, so I'll try to answer your questions while thinking out loud. (Pardon me if I ramble - that's my normal thinking mode these days!)

Pro Union There are cases where unions have made the difference between workers being treated humanely and not, between workers being paid fairly and treated like slaves. There was more of this years ago (before unions existed, some would point out) than now, in part because now there are fair labor standards nation wide.

Anti Union In places where unions are powerful it can be difficult, if not impossible, for people to get certain types of jobs. I have relatives in New Jersey, for instance, who have been unable to get work in certain trades because they're unable to join the union (they claim it's very political and difficult to join a union without connections) - and work is never done in these trades by non-union workers. To me that's nuts. If I can be trained and certified as an electrician, for example, why shouldn't I be able to compete with other electricians for jobs? Why can't I start a business and compete with companies who use union workers? (Keep in mind that I've never seen this first-hand - this view is based on what I've been told.)

Union employees may not be motivated to work as hard, and to try new approaches, because their compensation is set by contract instead of based on their performance. As a software developer, I'd hate to think that my salary was determined by the negotiating power of all software developers employed by my company, for example, instead of by my hard work and contributions to my employer. There comes a point where one realizes that the person in the next office (or cubicle or work-station) slacks off and gets the same compensation - so what motivation is there to work hard?

I believe union employees often forget that the employer, not the union, pays their wages. Unions, like most organizations, can and do become political - often making decisions that are in the best interest of the organization instead of the members.

I also believe unions encourage businesses to move out of an area, taking jobs with them. My own employer, who operates facilities in eight states, recently went through a union vote at our New Jersey facility. The union was not voted in, but if it had been the facility would have been closed when the building lease expired next summer and operations would have been combined with those in a similar facility in a different state. As our CEO explained, the workers there posses no particular skills that cannot be found in other places, so we have no business reason to continue operations there if we can serve our customers more efficiently from another location. Unfortunately I believe this is what has driven so many of America's production operations out of the country. (Increased costs of operating with union employees and tougher labor laws.)

Right-To-Work Laws I do not believe these laws (if North Carolina is any example) increase wages although they might (I can't say for certain) increase job opportunities. At the very least they make it possible for anyone with the necessary skills to be considered for all available jobs without having to join a union and pay union dues. Businesses can compete for jobs and workers more freely - and I believe that is a good thing for employees, investors and society.

So, to answer the original question, I think unions now do more harm than good. But I'm thankful for the improvements in working conditions (fair wages, improved working conditions, etc.) in this country over the last century, for which labor unions can claim much of the credit.

I don't think today's companies are without consciences (at least not the majority of them), with no concern for the human resources that make them run. The bottom line (profit) may be more visible than the compassion or concern for workers, but smart business leaders know that taking care of employees is crucial. That might have been more true a few years ago, when the economy was stronger and unemployment was lower, but I believe it's still true.

I think right-to-work laws do far more good than harm.

[mshawpyle]

Three cheers for Oklahoma.

There may have been a time - about the time of the Haymarket Riots - that unions served a legitimate purpose. They are now and have long been not only parasites on productivity, but textbook examples of exactly why the Feds have a RICO (Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization) statute on the books.

What confuses me is:

I think it's kind of sad. Being 52, we started careers in the 1970's and 1980's, when companies had consciences. Corporate America isn't nearly as kind and gentle as it was 20 years ago, and I think that's a great tragedy. It cares more about stockholders than workers in its wild pursuit of beefing up the bottom line.

What are companies supposed to do? Not beef up the bottom line?

Corporate management has a legal, quasi-fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Not to its workers. 'Business judgment rule' or no 'business judgment rule,' a deliberate refusal to maximize shareholder return would be actionable.

[AmyLEnsor]

I lived so long in Virginia that the right to work laws seems fine to me. I have an opinion of unions, but I usually just keep it to myself or else I end up angering people. Let me just say that I agree with Joubert. I guess I feel for every negative story I could tell, there have to be some positive ones. But my husband many years before I met him worked for a security company in DC. His company also did business in Philadelphia. In DC they had a field service representative who would drive to a building to check things out and make minor repairs if necessary (like if a door contact came loose he would screw it back in). If it was a major repair he would call in the proper specialist.

In Philadelphia, they had to use two people. The repair person wasn't allowed to drive, and the driver wasn't allowed to do anything that might constitute a repair. There were two different unions that covered this stuff, and unless the person belonged to both unions, he/she couldn't both drive to the building and fix whatever it was that was causing the alarm to go off.

My sister in Virginia actually joined the union at her company and I don't see that she has benefitted from it at all. By that I mean that her terms seem pretty bad: how long she can be required to work after her scheduled shift ends, how many days off she can have a week (apparently only 1), and other things along those lines.

[conradd]

Tonight is the final class for one of my student groups. One student was interrupted in the middle of his presentation to troubleshoot a server problem in a plant 75 miles away. The solution was simple, just flip a switch to reset, but the employee on duty refused to do so because he was union and my student had no authority to give him that instruction, even though it would have solved the problem immediately. This resulted in my student leaving for a 3 hour round trip drive to flip a switch. .

It cares more about stockholders than workers in its wild pursuit of beefing up the bottom line.

How will this one incident affect bottom line? Hours of overtime for my student, hours of lost productivity while the server is down. Where is the responsibility of workers to the plant? It works both ways.

Deb

[erik_kosberg]

Corporate management has a legal, quasi-fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Not to its workers.

Corporations also have a legal duty to act within the constraints of state-granted corporate charters that can be revoked if the corporations do not serve the common good.

Whether or not “the common good” includes cracking down on unions is open to interpretation. In the current environment, I doubt that the Supremes would rule in favor of unionization as serving the common good. But a different set of Supremes might rule otherwise.

Originally posted by frazzledspice
I think it's kind of sad. Being 52, we started careers in the 1970's and 1980's, when companies had consciences. Corporate America isn't nearly as kind and gentle as it was 20 years ago, and I think that's a great tragedy. It cares more about stockholders than workers in its wild pursuit of beefing up the bottom line.

Excuse me? In the 70's, things weren't exactly hunky dory, especially for blue collar workers.

I come from a town that was, at least in the 70's, primarily a blue collar town. At the time, the country was in a recession and many, many companies were desperately trying to find ways to make a profit. Layoffs were planned. The concept was simple. Cut off the hand to save the rest of the body. Is that having a conscience?

This is a great example because the lay-offs didn't happen. Why? Because the unions went on strike. The town had 5 major factories at time, and all were on strike. The companies kept coming back to the bargaining table saying, "You don't understand. This is the best we can do." The unions kept coming back and saying, "Hah! You're just selfishly looking at profits." In the end, the companies said, "Go back to work or we're moving the jobs elsewhere." The unions didn't believe it. The companies closed the factories and moved the jobs to other places, some out of the country.

Imagine the economic effects of having the 5 largest employers in the town shut down! For a long time, the town had the largest unemployment rate in Ohio.

That lasted until Honda of America opened their factory there. Since then, the town has been growing and thriving.

A couple years after the factory opened, the UAW tried to bully the workers there into unionizing. It shouldn't be much of a surprise to find that every vote to unionize has been defeated by a vast margin. Seems that people in small towns have very long memories.

[cristina1]

Locally, we have a lot of paper mills, unfortunately all of which are struggling. There have just been hundreds of people laid off in all but one of the factories.

Unfortunately, the one factory that hasnt suffered layoffs is unionized and on strike. I dont understand it. This comapny wasnt planning on laying anyone off, but they did need to make a few changes in their budgets. As the only company that offered time and a half for Sundays and paid the entire amount of benefits, they were requested going striaght time for Sundays and having the employees contribute a small amount weekly towards benefits. In a time when layoffs in the field are rising, I think it is a great deal vs being on the unemployment line.

Unfortunately, the union doesnt think so. Not only did the union demand to not lose time and a half on Sundays and not contribute a dime to benefits, they actually want MORE than they were getting before. Guess what - they arent going to get it. With so many unemployed factory workers out there, they have more than enough people willing to cross the picket lines to earn a paycheck and keep food on the table. The strikers are the ones who are suffering through this whole ordeal.

From everything I have heard, the company itself was doing everything they can to keep on all of their workers. It is the union that is appearing to be greedy and selfish, at the expense of the workers. As I said, layoffs in the field are a big thing. They must know that layoffs will happen here also if they wont take any form of cutback.

[poseidon]

Originally posted by gracef


Excuse me? In the 70's, things weren't exactly hunky dory, especially for blue collar workers.

I come from a town that was, at least in the 70's, primarily a blue collar town. At the time, the country was in a recession and many, many companies were desperately trying to find ways to make a profit. Layoffs were planned. The concept was simple. Cut off the hand to save the rest of the body. Is that having a conscience?

This is a great example because the lay-offs didn't happen. Why? Because the unions went on strike. The town had 5 major factories at time, and all were on strike. The companies kept coming back to the bargaining table saying, "You don't understand. This is the best we can do." The unions kept coming back and saying, "Hah! You're just selfishly looking at profits." In the end, the companies said, "Go back to work or we're moving the jobs elsewhere." The unions didn't believe it. The companies closed the factories and moved the jobs to other places, some out of the country.

Imagine the economic effects of having the 5 largest employers in the town shut down! For a long time, the town had the largest unemployment rate in Ohio.

That lasted until Honda of America opened their factory there. Since then, the town has been growing and thriving.

A couple years after the factory opened, the UAW tried to bully the workers there into unionizing. It shouldn't be much of a surprise to find that every vote to unionize has been defeated by a vast margin. Seems that people in small towns have very long memories.

Grace,

Excellent example. Hamilton, Ohio went into the toilet once my company pulled its HQ out of there -- it was already depressed and we were the biggest employer in the area. The only other two employers of any consequence left are a paper factory and the Catholic church. I'm pretty sure the latter isn't unionized.

Unions are good for some people. If you're unable to negotiate (I don't like the word "unwilling" in this case) a good deal for yourself, perhaps you need to look to "professionals" to negotiate for you. In exchange, you get to pay someone for their skills the rest of your career.

Every so often, some union representatives try to gather the insurance adjusting industry together and ask us to join their nifty program. Each and every time they show up, we politely ask them to leave.

You may ask yourself why. Ours is an industry of negotiation. We
re perfectly capable on our own to negotiate better terms and conditions. Also, this is an industry where there are a lot of people who can move around from company to company if they want because good insurance adjustors are hard to find.

But I agree what was said up above -- unions are hypocritical because they hate big business yet are a big business themselves. And, looking back at the last UPS strike, it would seem that they don't really have their members' best interests at heart -- they only seem to have their own selfish interest at heart.

Jeff

[Redlass]

Ugh.

Ya'll are making me want to go dust off all those textbooks from the labor and industrial relations economics classes I took.

I'll start by saying I have been a life-long union supporter and though I am not currently a member (I let my dues lapse in the freelancers union I belonged to), I continue to support them and think they are necessary.

Corporate management has a legal, quasi-fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Not to its workers.

Actually, businesses have all sorts of duties to its workers. We have to revise our human resources textbook every other year because the laws are some complicated and changing.

Also, the fact that the law forces businesses to be more responsible to those who invest money than those who invest time, talent, and labor is simply another argument in favor of unions.

There is corruption in unions. There is even more corruption in big business. For all that you have the business owner who works 16 hours a day and takes great risks, you also have the business owners who come in drunk, work three hours and still walk away with most of the money and fat bonuses.

Unions protect workers. Do you really think we would have an OSHA without unions? Have you any idea how dangerous it is to work in a factory? People still get killed on the job--and much more often in states where there are right-to-work laws and no unions. (Disclaimer: The statistics I had on that argument are about 10 years old. I haven't continued to follow it closely enough to know whether that is still true.)

I still believe that factory workers in the auto industry ought to be pulling in large salaries. They work in horrid, difficult situations that have the potential to leave them crippled or dead. (Yes, I know several people who have died from work-related injuries or asbestos exposure.) They sacrifice their health to produce what was for a long time this country's greatest economic strength--the automobiles. Let me tell you, the factory worker in Detroit is doing more for the success of that company than some person who decided to write a check to purchase stock.

Yes, unions make stupid decisions sometimes and sometimes fail to recognize the economic conditions under which the company is operating. Businesses also make stupid decisions sometimes.

I have little patience with the argument that the only people who deserve profits are those who have money to begin with. It is that sort of arguments and the laws that are made to that effect that prove the need for continued existance of unions. Who else is going to participate in the political process as the voice of people in this country who are performing the labor?

I also don't have a problem with unions becoming more powerful--how else are they going to come to a bargaining term on equal footing with a business? They have to be strong enough so they can insist on fair labor laws, so they can insist on safety, so they can insist on fair hours, so they can insist on reasonable benefits.

I forgot to mention...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but an HR person once told me that there are other benefits to being a "Right to Work" state. She said that this makes it easier for people who have been laid off from one company and then wish to go work for a competitor. For instance, I'm a programmer. If I was laid off from companyA, then companyA can't stop me from working for its competitor companyB, because I have a right to work.

[Redlass]

Two other posts were made while I was composing mine, and I have to respond to one comment:

It is the union that is appearing to be greedy and selfish, at the expense of the workers.

Last I knew, labor law still required unions to take contract proposals to the membership to vote on. I haven't a problem with saying that the union is greedy and selfish in this case, but you can't absolve the workers. They voted in the leadership and they voted to reject the contract proposals.

So the workers will pay the consequence of their actions. It is not dissimilar to businesses that have to pay the consequences of their actions when they choose to take risks. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't. At least they are put in a position where they can choose to take that risk rather than having layoffs strike them with no reason, notice, or explanation.

[poseidon]

Unions protect workers. Do you really think we would have an OSHA without unions? Have you any idea how dangerous it is to work in a factory? People still get killed on the job--and much more often in states where there are right-to-work laws and no unions. (Disclaimer: The statistics I had on that argument are about 10 years old. I haven't continued to follow it closely enough to know whether that is still true.)

OSHA isn't exactly a good thing, either. Due to OSHA requirements, I'm forced to carry a very heavy wood ladder when I climb roofs. It would be much easier for me, especially when I'm out in the boonies, to carry a lightweight aluminum ladder instead (sometimes I'm forced to walk up steep gravel slopes in the mountains in order to access someone's roof, kinda hard with a 40# ladder on one side of my body). OSHA, however, thinks that in a job where I'm paid to be observant, that I'm too stupid to look out for power lines and thus I need to carry the wood ladder.

Sure, some of the protections of OSHA are good. There are dozens of examples around any office that are totally lame, though. The rest of us shouldn't have to be forced to deal with the things that stupid people do.

[vemartin]

No matter how you look at this situation in the final analysis Corporate America has only itself to blame for the current state of Union/Corporate relations. Unions would never have been necessary if corporations had dealt fairly with its works from the beginning. Instead in a bid to maximize profits at any cost, corporations argued that workers should be free to enter into contracts that stated they could work 18 hours day without overtime if need be.

I believe corporations have a duty to the community in which they are located to be good citizens, and to treat their workers fairly and with respect. Most corporation play lip service to workers rights and claim that workers are their most valuable resource. But when it comes time to cut cost, workers are the first resource corporations shed. The end result is a lack of trust between worker and employers, that has led unions to protect the worker at all cost, not matter the consequences to the corporation as a whole.

What we need is a new relationship between employers and employees, a new understanding if you will. One the recognizes the employers right to make a profit, but also recognizes the employees right to make a living, and earn a decent wage. We have to come to a point where shedding jobs is done as a measure of last resort and not looked upon as the first line of defense for cutting costs. 100,000 jobs in one week from one industry; hello anybody home?

[frazzledspice]

Jeff, the insurance industry has been hard hit this year, and I've read that most insurance companies will fail to post a profit.

If their failure to post a profit results in numerous layoffs (I've already heard it will result in commercial premium increases of 15-20%) the employees will be hard pressed to job hop and negotiate their salaries and benefits upward. Most likely they will spend some time retraining for different careers, as will airline mechanics.

Grace, I lived in a small town for two years (Vermillion, South Dakota, population 15,000.) What an eye opener it was. It was a town where employers had employees over the barrel (my husband worked for Gateway, 30 miles down the road, so he was well protected.)

Blue collar workers who earned $15,000 a year (gasp!) had work weeks of 45-50 hours. They didn't get paid for the overtime because they were on "salary." Overtime time and a half rules, etc. only apply to hourly employees, so companies wihout consciences would put $6.00 an hour employees on salary to exploit them.

If a large company paying $8.00 an hour wanted to move in, the Chamber of Commerce would block them from coming, because the members of the Chamber were afraid that they might have to pay their trapped employees more than $6.00 an hour.

Even Gateway, before it got bigger, had benefits that struck me as "pre-industrial revolution." It was only when they needed to attract serious numbers of highly qualified people who wouldn't put up with things like that that they decided they had to offer benefits similar to that of other computer manufacturers.

In South Dakota, I taught Kindermusik and piano. Couldn't charge what I charged in Missouri. Had one piano student on a small farm with chickens who paid me partially in eggs. Made lots of omelets. Was probably more charitable than I'd ever been anywhere else in my life, because I was surrounded by the working poor, and felt lots of guilt because my circumstances were so much better.

I don't think that unions should try to bleed a company (or a government) dry. I think it's appalling that a rookie policeman in suburban Suffolk County, Long Island, New York makes $110,000 a year.

I was just pretty surprised to see, in a time where hard times are getting harder, that Oklahomans voted against unions.....I just hope it wasn't because of some glitzy, misleading ad campaign (like the one I saw.)

[erik_kosberg]

Originally posted by frazzledspice
Commercials airing in favor of the law said, "The states around us that have right to work laws have higher wages." (I didn't see any proof for this allegation...

Even if statistics had been given showing wage levels in the other states, that wouldn’t erase the fact that no cause and effect situation can be shown to exist. A recent Census Bureau report shows that Minnesota (not a right-to-work state) has one of the highest median household incomes in the country. The states around Oklahoma could have higher incomes for a wide variety of reasons, but assigning the blame to unionization would seem to be unsubstantiated.

[poseidon]

What we need is a new relationship between employers and employees, a new understanding if you will. One the recognizes the employers right to make a profit, but also recognizes the employees right to make a living, and earn a decent wage. We have to come to a point where shedding jobs is done as a measure of last resort and not looked upon as the first line of defense for cutting costs. 100,000 jobs in one week from one industry; hello anybody home?

Vincent,

The problem is, especially in the industry you've cited, that demand has suddenly disappeared for the service. So now, instead of having people busy, you now have people doing nothing yet are still getting paid. While you can sit on one end and say, "In a couple of weeks business will likely pick up again" no one can predict the future and those jobs do cost money.

Moreover, you're not just paying salary to those people. You also are paying benefits. You're also paying social security taxes. You're also paying unemployment insurance. You're also paying worker compensation insurance. Having a staff is an expensive undertaking, and it is easy to raise the bottom line significantly if you cut staff.

Finally, many large businesses aren't responsible to just the CEO and the Board of Directors. They are responsible to stockholders. People who own stock expect the stock to go up in value. The only way that the stock is going to go up in value is if the company shows a profit. If the stock goes too far down in price, the company risks bankruptcy.

So, while I would like to say that it would be great to keep those employees around even in bad times, is it better to lay off a percentage of your workers so that the company stays afloat and many people keep their jobs, or is it better for the company to keep a full staff and go bankrupt so that nobody has a job?

Jeff

[poseidon]

Jeff, the insurance industry has been hard hit this year, and I've read that most insurance companies will fail to post a profit.

If their failure to post a profit results in numerous layoffs (I've already heard it will result in commercial premium increases of 15-20%) the employees will be hard pressed to job hop and negotiate their salaries and benefits upward. Most likely they will spend some time retraining for different careers, as will airline mechanics.

Actually the insurance industry has posted losses for the last several years. It's been a long time since many have shown profits. In fact, this past quarter was the first year in the last five or six years that my own company has shown a profit.

But the best adjustors are the ones who are kept, and the less hard-working ones are the ones let go. The best adjustors are the ones who are able to keep overpayments down, and thus are the most profitable for the company, no matter how much they are being paid (good adjustors should be able to save the company the cost of their salary and benefits annually by good claims handling).

While it's true that in hard times it would be more difficult to negotiate benefits upward and salaries upward, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a union being able to do any better. If the money isn't there, then it isn't there. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

Jeff