Indiana’s Right to Work Battle

So far, this is the best article I’ve found on the subject.  It seems to sum things up pretty well without taking a side one way or the other.  http://www.pal-item.com/article/20120109/NEWS01/201090317/What-right-work-battle-Statehouse-all-about

Currently: You cannot be forced to join a union, but the union can demand non-members pay a fee for a newly negotiated contract. 

If Passed, the law will prevent unions from collecting those fees from non-members. 

So, I can see a point for both sides of this debate.  Union supporters are claiming there will be a major infusion of “freeloaders” who benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it.  Ok, I’ll buy that.  R.T.W. supporters say it will attract new jobs and it will stop forcing people to pay for something they don’t want.  I can also see that.  Personally I have a problem with forcing people to pay a fee for your representation.  What if I don’t like it, don’t want it or simply can’t afford it? 

I grew up with union supporters on my mom’s side and my dad’s side.  Rumor has it my grandfather was involved in the coal miners revolt in Illinois back in the day.  That mess got violent and bloody.  Workers were fighting for the most basic safe working conditions back then.  That is not the world we live in today.  I think my grandfather would be ashamed to see what makes its way into union contracts these days.  Many unions (not all) have moved from ensuring basic worker’s rights to crippling companies just because they can.  Some union leaders have become corrupt with power and flex their political muscle, just to prove they can.  Or maybe they are still punishing them for the ghosts of some violation from 50 years ago.  Who knows why these contracts end up with color requirement for break rooms or mandatory breaks every 15 minutes or the highest wages anywhere in the world for an unskilled job?  

I have personally had a couple of experiences with unions that I would like to share and compare those to the new legislation.  First, I worked at a prison.  When I got hired the union rep came in and gave his little speech and they passed around their sign up forms.  I don’t remember what he said, but I do remember what my mother, my father, my uncles and my grandparents had said about unions making sure a place was safe to work.  He didn’t have to pitch me.  I was going to work at a prison.  I wanted to make sure I was safe.  I happily signed away about 15% of my check.  Several months later the union negotiated for longer shifts and completely different scheduling.  I didn’t get a vote.  I didn’t like the new schedules.  It wasn’t anything close to what I wanted.  In fact, it made my life harder.  It reduced my wages because I could no longer volunteer for the kind of overtime I was getting before the negotiation.  I soon thereafter lost my house to foreclosure and filed bankruptcy to get out of the mess I created.  I’m not saying that contract was solely responsible, it wasn’t.  There were many contributing factors and many bad decisions, but it was a contributing factor.  I was working an average of 60 hours a week to compensate for those other factors (my decisions).  When the rules changed, I was no longer allowed to work that kind of overtime.  I forfeit 15% of my check so that the union could negate my ability to work the overtime I needed.  In my mind, that was a waste of money.  I’d really like my 15% back now.  

My other experience was at a shipping company.  I was an intern working for management.  We had a guy there that was either lazy, incompetent or a dangerous combination of both.  Management did not like him.  His fellow employees didn’t like him.  He’s the kind of guy who is more productive sitting on his ass in the break room because if touches anything, somebody is going to have to fix it.  But we couldn’t fire him.  No-no; he has “rights”.  I saw him get wrote up at least a dozen times in the several months that I worked there.  He always appealed and filed a grievance and gamed the union system to keep his job.  He was a danger to himself and to others.  He cost everyone time and he cost the company money.  Doesn’t a company have the right to simply NOT lose money due to consistent impenitence?  The red tape was ridiculous.  Once you got a job there, it was impossible to get fired.  It attracted the lowest kind of employee.  I remember mentioning “the Customer” a few times.  That whole concept seemed foreign to everyone and was often met with a “deer in headlights” kind of response.  It seems the struggle between management and union had pretty much become all that mattered to anyone anymore.  Who is this “customer” you speak of?

That’s not to say everyone there was worthless employee, far from it.  I worked with some people who truly knew their job, were highly competent and took pride in their work, but that didn’t always show in their daily habits.  The union endorsed and encouraged a wall between workers and management.  Everyone on both sides of that wall spoke in terms of US vs THEM.  Being an intern was an interesting place to observe this culture.  I was kind of in-between.  I got the job because I knew a few of the union guys, so I was one of them.  But I was intern for management, so I was also one of them.  I saw men come together and get the job done in record times when we under a crunch and I was proud to be a part of that team.  I also saw men purposely obstruct workflow because they had a problem with the manager on duty that night and I was ashamed to be a part it.  We were capable of exceeding expectations on the busiest night of the year and capable of failing on the slowest night of the year.  I saw guys drink on the job, because they can’t get fired.  I saw guys who but refused to turn in his “union brother” for unsafe practices or even intervene himself.  I saw managers throw guys under the bus because of something the union did. And on and on and on.

It’s the red tape, the culture and the derisiveness that a union brings that I disagree with.  It is my personal experience that a union acts for its own sake and not the sake of its members.  So apply that to this legislation.  Why should I be forced to pay for representation that I do not want?  Whether you force me to pay dues or you call it a “fee”, you are still forcing me to pay.  Now, if you are a union that works with the company as part of a team, you have the full support of your members and you do not have the problems I listed above; then you likely provide a good service.  The kind of service most members, and even non-members, are willing to pay for.  And that is the overall point.  If you have a service people see value in, they will pay for it.  You’re probably not the ones pouring money into politicians, or defending piss poor employees or making the rift bigger instead of smaller. 

No, the ones in the middle of this debate are the one’s spending their money on politicians.  Politicians who will force people to give them what they want.  Not because it’s a service worth paying for, or terms acceptable to two private parties, but because the government has guns to enforce it.  The kinds of unions in the middle of this debate are the ones who want to take as much as they can for as long as they can.  They will drain a business like a famished vampire, then they will move on to their next victim.  That is evident to me when I see that their most outspoken supporters refuse to show up for work.  It’s as simple as that for me.  When you fail to do the job I’m paying you to do, you have already told me all I need to know about your opinion.  Just like the obstructive type of union, these politicians will shut down the whole factory in order to extract an unnecessary demand.  How does that strike affect the guy living paycheck to paycheck to feed his family?  Will he be stoned to death just for going to work?  Should I ever have to decide between keeping my house and paying union dues?  

In this case they are shutting down the State Legislature.  Nothing gets done because a few of you aren’t getting your way?  Is there no other legislation on the table?  Is this more important than having tougher laws for sex trafficking?  Is it more important than reviewing compensation given to the victims of the stage collapse at the state fair?  Child Solicitation? Any of the other hundreds of bills you’re supposed to be working on?  There’s a right way and wrong way to do things.  Indiana House Democrats are doing it the wrong way by storming out and throwing a fit.  Baby Huey was a funny cartoon when I was kid, but I don’t like paying people to act that way on the news. 

Here’s my big question, if the major complaint is that some people might benefit from collective bargaining without paying for the representation, why not exclude them?  Once a deal is struck, let them negotiate their own raise with management.  Let them manage their own relationship with the company.  Make the fee optional.  If you struck a good deal, then it should be worth the fee to be included under the contract.  Why does it need to be “forced” or “compulsory?”  I’ll tell you why, because it’s not worth the money.  You don’t provide a service worthy of the cost you demand.  There are many many unions out there who will not be affected by this law because they provide a valuable service.  If you’re a union that’s sweating bullets over this legislation, then maybe you need to reconnect with your members.