Collective Bargaining

Unions Threaten to Derail the Super Bowl After Indiana Becomes the 23rd Right-to-Work State

|

Indiana became the 23rd right-to-work state this afternoon after its Senate voted 28-22 to approve a bill to that effect  and Governor Mitch Daniels signed it post haste. This means that Big Labor will no longer be able to extract mandatory dues from workers and channel them (dues, not workers) to elect compliant Democrats.

Union activists are livid and chanted "shame, shame" outside as the Senate voted. They are threatening to stop the Super Bowl in Indianapolis on Sunday in protest.

They claim that the law is pure union-busting vindictiveness on the part of the GOP. Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, a Democrat, called the notion that many employers would be attracted to Indiana because of the law a myth. "Right-to work is a race to the bottom, it's a downward spiral to lower wages and fewer benefits," Simpson said.

He may be right or he may be wrong (actually, he's wrong, studies have shown) but one thing is for certain: Unions won't win friends and influence Americans by ruining the Super Bowl. Thanksgiving, may be. Christmas, perhaps. Super Bowl, hands off.

Having failed in their goal line stand, wouldn't it be plain un-American to send fans to the field to stop the game?

(Watch this space tomorrow for an analysis by yours truly on where the right-to-work movement is headed next.)

NEXT: The Interns are Revolting! Or, a Former Unpaid Intern for Harper's Bazaar Wants A Class Action Lawsuit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Frist!

    1. Bill Frist? Is that you?

      1. People are still doing the “first” thing? Lame.

        1. It started cropping up here a couple of weeks ago, and yeah — it’s lame. And annoying.

          1. You’re new here…

            Good Morning Reason!

  2. Stay classy, Unions.

    1. Obama has a solution. Red China fixed their unions and we can do the same. Look how great it is working with the UAW.

    2. Bi or want to find people having the same sexual orientation?—datebi*cO’m— is a safe and free site for you.

    3. Never, ever hire anyone who was once in a union.

      There is always a choice and those who choose to join unions should never be hired.

  3. If the unions are dumb enough to fuck with the Superbowl, the lulz from the pwning they get will be epic. I hope they try; I could use the entertainment.

    1. I agree, this could be a lot more entertaining than the commercials which we all know is the only reason people watch the Super Bowl anyway.

      1. I watch just on the off chance Brady gets injured.

        1. From Epi’s orifice to God’s ear . . .

          wait, that sounds wrong. . . .

          1. To R.C Dean : That post, my friend, had me laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes and my ribs hurt…
            Wonderful, unexpected…but wonderful

        2. I would never root for a player to get injured. But I will make an exception in this case. Screw Brady!

        3. I almost want to make a snarky reply to that because everyone I know is a Patriots fan. But then I remember that I don’t like football that much and couldn’t give a fuck about the Patriots or Brady. So I hope that works out for you. I’m pretty sure I don’t get the superbowl channel, so I won’t know.

          1. You don’t get NBC?

        4. Or worse, his hair! If it gets messed up, that would be the end of all things!

      2. I am goddamn tired of gay ass Patriots super bowls. I predict the game to be another dry anticlimax. Nothing remarkable is going to happen. And they keep picking terrible “artists” for the “performances”. Madonna. Clarkson. Fuck that shit I have balls. I’m done spending five hours having people try to sell me shit. Sunday will be like a time warp for me to do whatever the hell I want.

        1. With each passing year I find myself paying less and less attention to the actual game (except when my team is in it, which as a Bears fan isn’t too much of a problem). At this point it’s pretty much just an excuse to hang out with friends and drink.

          1. I’m a little down on the NFL right now because of the lack of defense on an almost league-wide scale. Part of that is some ridiculous rules, but it’s also just catering to “Score more points, dude!!!!” thinking.

            1. It’s why I’ve shifted to primarily watching college.

              You can still hit helmet-to-helmet without drawing a flag, defense still rules championships, and if there’s a lot of offense, it’s because somebody is just that damn good.

              1. You can still hit helmet-to-helmet

                No you cant. Its been years since that has been allowed in college.

                1. He just means the helmets can be within feet of one another.

                  1. Im just pissed that they dont flag the offense when the ballcarrier lowers his head and goes helmet to helmet with the tackler.

                    Fucking Brady cheating Quinn beat GT with that manouver.

                2. Yes, you can. I see it all the time, in college games every single day (well, every day that there’s a college game).

                  You can’t go h-t-h on a QB or defenseless player, like in the NFL, but the interpretation of “defenseless” is much less stringent in college than in the league. You can’t seriously say with a straight face that you see as many personal foul flags in an Alabama/LSU game as you do in a Saints/Colts game.

                  1. Ive seen enough bullshit h-t-h calls in college to last me forever. The fact that it is slightly more lax than the NFL game doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

                    1. I’ve long preferred the college game, too. I don’t watch many NFL games other than the Bucs, and they need to get better, or I won’t watch them much, either.

                    2. Eh, college basketball for me.

                      I simply can not stomach the way D-1 chooses its champ. And the fans for D-1 football are just really fucking annoying, especially when SEC fans try to explain how their conferences should always play in the title game.

                    3. Yeah, well, in the past decade, I think SEC teams would be winning in a playoff system, anyway.

                      That said, I’ve wanted a playoff system for as long as I can remember. If they can do it in most every other sport–including lower division football–they can do it in Division I.

                    4. While I’m all for a playoff, at least the regular season games still matter in football. The best argument against a tournament style postseason is what the NCAA has done and is trying to do to college basketball. 68 teams is at least 36 too many and no team with a losing record should even have a shot at being the national champion.

              2. I can’t stand college football. Too many games are Football U vs. Basket Weaver Tech, and unless Football U wins 72-3 they’re considered to have had a bad game. Then there’s the BCS (which should be called the BSC, for Bullshit Championship) where nobody can ever really agree on which teams should play.

              3. You can still hit helmet-to-helmet without drawing a flag,

                H2H is ok in the NFL too unless it’s done to a “defenseless player”, eg the QB immediately after a pass or a receiver who is in the process of making a catch. It’s the hits on receivers that get flagged most.

              4. Unless it’s the PAC 10.

                I never trust a PAC 10 QB or WR to do well in the NFL simply because they’ve never once faced a real defense.

                1. I never trust a PAC 10 QB or WR to do well in the NFL simply because they’ve never once faced a real defense.

                  Aaron Rodgers says hello.

            2. May a recommend becoming a Chiefs fan? Our defense is at times actually pretty good, but our team is geared towards defensive fans in other ways. For example, our offense this past season was so atrocious it made every team we played look like the 85 Bears.

              1. You say “our” like you are that close with them…

                1. I quit watching sports when I got kids. A lot of stuff had to be ditched to make time for all the demands ankle-biters put on your time, and sports were the first to go.

                  1. I’ve watched fewer and fewer games over the years. I’m down to occasional games of the teams I follow. Don’t even go to games more than 2-3 times a year–that’s all sports. Might go to a few more Rays games this year, though.

                2. I’ve engaged in direct correspondence with the general manager, met him, and exchanged emails. So, yeah, I’ll say “our”.

                  piss off.

                3. So I said to the Packer fan, “You act like you own the… oh wait, you do.”

          2. One does not need an excuse to hang out with friends and drink. Or to just drink for that matter.

            1. dammit, had i scrolled past the college football subthread….

          3. it’s pretty much just an excuse to hang out with friends and drink

            Because people should need an excuse to hang out and drink. wtf?

            1. They do if their partner took their balls.

              1. I hear they look lovely as a gilded pair of earrings.

          4. As a fellow Bears fan- It would help if Goddamn Jay Cutler could throw the ball in less than 15 seconds.

            1. That’s definitely part of it, but a good coach should also partly tailor his plan to the players he has. Mike Martz refuses to give up on his old super-pass Greatest Show on Turf philosophy, even if it obviously doesn’t work well with this QB and O-line.

            2. Bullshit. The Bears offensive line can’t hold a block long enough for Cutler to get 15 seconds.

              Mike Martz was clearly rejected by Cutler’s mom when they were in high school because there is no other explanation for him calling 7-step drops behind THAT line.

              1. There’s definitely blame to go around but a competent receiving corps would go a long way. With the exception of Earl Bennett they can’t catch and they can’t run routes. One of the reasons Jay holds on to the ball too long is a direct result of the receivers not getting open. I mean it’s Cutler. It’s not like the guy is shy about trying to put a ball through a needle hole. So if he’s holding on to it that means no one is even close to being open.

            3. I’m floored by Bears fans acting like Jay Cutler is the problem after what happened this year.

              7-3 with Cutler, 1-4 without. And the opponents for the Cutler games were much tougher on average. Of course, losing Forte hurt too, but we should be worshipping Jay after seeing how the team sucked without him.

              1. Sorry, 1-5 without.

                1. You are right, Tulpa. Cutler was looking great this year and had he not been hurt when they were 7-3 and playoff bound, it could easily have been them as the NFC reps Sunday. They wouldn’t have beaten the Packers, but after the Pack were taken out the Bears might have been able to take down both the Giants and the 49ers.

                  1. By the way, I hate people who call them “Da Bears”. I also hate people who say “Cubbies.” Neither are real fans of the teams, they just think they are being cute.

        2. I missed the whole damn thing last year. Didn’t even watch the commercials the next day.

          And it’s not like the recent games are late 80s-early 90s type of blowouts, some have actually had pretty good play throughout. But it’s just not as exciting as it used to be–maybe it’s because of all the media saturation.

          1. I recall last year was boring. So was the yinzer one a few back.

          2. The strange thing about the Super Bowl is that for all its obvious popularity, high ratings, etc., it’s still missing a certain romantic, transcendent quality. It’s like this humongous event that people don’t actually really care about.

            Contrast that with, say, the World Series. Even as the ratings steadily decline, even as baseball overall undergoes its slow, sad decline, the World Series still feels special. There’s still something magical about it.

            That applies to a handful of other A-list sports events too — the Final Four, the Olympics, the World Cup, the Indy 500. But there’s just something kind of plastic and ephemeral about the Super Bowl. It’s the most-viewed television event in the United States every year, yet I suspect most people couldn’t tell you — and couldn’t care less — who actually won it a couple of years ago.

            Weird.

    2. oh please oh please oh please….

      You couldn’t ask for a better pro- RTW PR moment than having the Unions try and stop the Super Bowl.

      1. I’m calling it: Unions get sacked, and the fans with their $2500 tickets (and a good head start on their first beer keg of the day) are in the Unions’ end zone kicking the sh** out of them.

    3. From your lips to God’s ear Epi. And the NFL is more powerful than the CIA. I wouldn’t be surprised if they hired blackwater to start shooting people if there was any danger to the game.

      These people really are as stupid as we think they are.

      1. Yes they are. Let’s hope they’re even stupider and actually try something.

        1. Are the blimp-pilots pro-union? To the point they’d be willing to sacrifice themselves?

          1. This seems familiar to me somehow.

            1. You’ve just been reported to DHS. You cannot enter the country.

              1. No, no, it was a movie. With some sort of racist title.

                1. Black Sunday reference FTW.

            2. I don’t think Black Sunday will work since Lucas Oil Stadium has a roof.

              1. What kind of pansies put a roof on a football stadium? What will they think up next? Special rules that prevent skill players from being tackled?

                1. You cant hit the QBs below the hemline.

                  1. I wistfully recall a manly game called football that was once played in this country.

                    1. The most manly sports are not team sports.

                2. “What kind of pansies put a roof on a football stadium? “

                  The same kind who used to play the Superbowl only in the South and West because tourists don’t want to go to some frozen industrial shithole to watch the Superbowl?

                  1. What kind of pansies don’t enjoy frozen industrial shit holes? Weather has little to no effect on me, and exploitative commerce fascinates me.

                  2. That, too. How silly not to keep the thing in permanent Tampa-Miami-San Diego rotation.

        2. Shirley they couldn’t be that stupid, could they? Please, please, please, let them be that stupid!

          Can you imagine?! A few dozen (hundred would be even better) union protesters going onto the field? How long until the crowd went all Egyptian/Brit soccer fan on them, descended en mass, and ripped them to pieces on live TV?! A few would probably even get eaten!

          Finally, the benefits of Empire! Bread AND Circuses!

          1. They’d last about 14.5 seconds.

            And don’t call me Shirley.

      2. There are who we thought they are.

        1. and we let ’em off the hook.

    4. Oh, God yes. It would be like Christmas in February.

    5. My thoughts exactly. Please let the Fairy Godmother department come through for me on this one.

    6. It’d be funny to watch them get arrested for terrorism.

  4. So happy this happened. But there really is a lot of wailing in my corner of the state.

    1. Which corner would that be? I spent some of the best years of my life in Logansport, IN.

      1. I grew up in New Castle. It was a Chrysler town. Course, the unions drained that venture dry.

      2. I was on a lecture tour once and had a stop in Logansport at a State Hospital there. I arrived an hour late because my car service from Chicago didn’t know we would cross in to the Eastern Time Zone. Poor audience had politely waited for an hour.

    2. Northwest. Solid Team Blue for the most part.

      1. Out of personal curiosity, from where in The Region do you hail?

        1. He’s totes from Gary.

          1. I will admit that I am from NW Indiana, somewhere on the lake, and not industrial.

            I HAVE SAID TOO MUCH ALREADY.

            1. Oh God you’re in Chesterton?! I keed.

      2. I moved out of Lake County a few years ago, a bit more east now.

        1. I was engaged to a girl from Merrillville (sp?) once, in 1984. Over by 1985.

  5. Unions, a CLASS act. Hah!

    1. Okay, everybody! No more Super Bowl stories now that we know that rather hates football!

      1. I will spare your life when we take over
        http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs1….._stock.jpg

        1. Promise me, if you take over, NOT to spare my life! ::shudders::

          1. No problem; I’ll make a note:
            Use Marshall’s nuts for earrings, and toss the rest of him in pet jaguar cage

  6. Query: shouldn’t it be the right of the unions to negotiate a contract with private business owners that requires the owner to collect union dues?

    1. It’s not the owner of the business that collects the dues, it’s the unions.

      1. So what?

        1. only if the union itself is fully voluntary.

        2. So if the unions are trying to force individual employees to pay dues to an organization they don’t want to join but are forced to because of state rules and regulations that’s fucking wrong. Of course I could be all kinds of confused on the issue.

    2. The law should not require all businesses within the state’s jurisdiction to collect dues on behalf of the union. The law should not prohibit the business from doing so voluntarily.

      1. Except that’s what RTW laws do – they prohibit a private employer from placing conditions on all employees who come through the door.

        If I said “Hey, Prospective Employee, you have to show up on time and dress neatly to come work for me”, no libertarian in the world is going to oppose my right to make that a precondition for employment. However, apparently if I say “Hey, Prospective Employee, you have to pay dues to the union to work for me”, banning that Freedom of Association is “libertarian” now?

        1. I’m torn on this issue. On the one hand, I hate unions, and just look at Detroit: the beautiful people’s paradise that unions built.

          On the other hand, this is fixing shitty legislation with more shitty legislation.

        2. How about the right not to associate?

          1. No employer has to accept a closed-shop CBA. None. They were permitted to do…until today in Indiana.

          2. Are you saying an employer doesnt have the right to fire an employee who refuses to associate?

            He has the right not to associate, he just doesnt get a job.

        3. The RTW pendulum is swinging too far the other direction. But after many decades of the law being on the the union side of neutral, I am not particularly unhappy about it being on the anti-union side for a while.

          Perhaps things will damp out eventually and the pendulum will settle at neutral some time (I laughed when I typed that).

        4. This is exactly (and I mean exactly) the same issue as the problems with some sections of the CRA.

          Government meddling in private businesses, telling them who they can hire or serve.

          And like with the CRA, it isnt that big of a deal.

        5. “Hey, Prospective Employee, you have to pay dues to the union to work for me”, banning that Freedom of Association is “libertarian” now?”

          How is forcing someone to associate with unions freedom of association?

          1. How is forcing someone to associate with unions freedom of association?

            How can unions have the freedom to associate without the ability to force people to associate with them, huh smart guy? ….wait, what?

          2. A job is not a right. That’s the OWS crowd who believes that. If an employer demands that I join an organization in order to take his job, then I can join, or not take the job.

            It’s wrong if the organization forces itself onto the employer. But it’s also wrong to say that the employer is not allowed to make that a condition of giving his job. It is HIS job, not the governments. Only he should decide what factors he wants to consider when offering it.

            1. It’s all a sordid mess than I don;t understand and fully despise.

            2. Its not the employer that requires union membership – its the union that requires the employer to not hire non-union labor.

        6. However, apparently if I say “Hey, Prospective Employee, you have to pay dues to the union to work for me”, banning that Freedom of Association is “libertarian” now?

          Huh?

          If the business wanted the union to have money then it can simply give the money to the union.

          I suggest you ignore the unicorns dancing around your head moony.

        7. RMB is right. RTW is completely against libertarian mores.

      2. Yes, this sort of legislation is about taking the thumb off of the scales, not putting it on.

        1. No, its about

          (a) giving the employee a completely free decision about whether to join the union, at the cost of

          (b) prohibiting the employer from requiring him to join the union,

          which is not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than having the state require him to join the union if he wants the job.

          1. No state ever has required private employees to join a union.

            1. Try to teach in a closed-shop state school without joining the union.

              Technically, you can choose not to join, but you still have to pay the dues.

              1. Technically, you can choose not to join, but you still have to pay the dues.

                You gotta buy the broccoli, but nobody is forcing you to eat it.

              2. My grandmother taught in a closed shop state. She refused to join the union and redirected her union dues to a charity. I think the union picked the menu of charities, but she was willing to accept that compromise.

                1. I think the union picked the menu of charities

                  “Planned Unionhood”
                  “United Unionway.”
                  “The Cystic Fibrosis Union”
                  etc

    3. Rev. Blue Moon : Are you SERIOUS Dude??

    4. This is exactly why I am ambivalent about right to work. An employer should be able to contract with a union however he wants to. Maybe if it just applied to public sector unions.

      1. Public sector unions shouldnt exist, period.

        Well, they can exist, but governments shouldnt be allowed to collectively bargain with them, which, same point.

        1. I have no problem with people associating in any manner they choose–religious groups, unions, political parties. I just don’t want those associations given special magical political sanction.

          1. I agree. Indiana should pass a law stripping unions of their federal magical sanctions.

            But this wasnt it.

            1. Even though I have a pretty broad imagination I can’t imagine a company which would want to be a closed shop. You seem to claim that companies desire to pay third parties to negotiate against them for labor costs. Why? Do you know of a single real life example when this has happened?

              Wouldn’t it be much more efficient for a company to form their own organization, rather than submitting to a third party for arbitration and collective bargaining? Why in the fuck would UPS want to deal with the Teamsters when they could simply form the UPSters “Union” to force people into collective bargaining?

              I agree that the government should tell neither employer nor employee the conditions of their contracts, so like most legislation this isn’t perfect. When unions actually become agents of association instead of agents of coercion, you will certainly have a point.

              1. If I knew that Plumbers & Pipefitters of Indiana would provide employees of a minimum quality standard, and be willing to reach a reasonable agreement to find a replacement if they failed to meet that standard, I might. Like buying products guaranteed by UL. That is rarely what happens.

                1. Does it ever happen?

      2. Why in dog’s name would an employer contact with a union? A personnel services firm perhaps, but a union? That’s like hiring a bunch a hungry mice to work in my cheese factory.

    5. Yes.

      Right to work laws are violations of the right to contract.

      But, pretty minor ones. Its at the bottom of my list.

    6. Yes it should.

      It should also be the right of the private business to fire everybody if they don’t feel like negotiating with a union. Until they fix that, any clawback on the privilege of forced negotiaion is still a net victory for liberty.

    7. shouldn’t it be the right of the unions to negotiate a contract with private business owners that requires the owner to collect union dues?

      That’s not what happening in non-RTW states. There, the government is forcing private business owners to negotiate with unions they don’t want to negotiate with, and forcing employees to join unions they don’t want to join.

      Now, I don’t have a problem with a union negotiating solely on the behalf of those employees who voluntarily have joined the union, with an employer who has a right to decline to reach any agreement with that union, and decline to continue to employ members of that union, and to cut separate employment contracts with non-union members.

    8. If they can’t collect them without garnishing wages, it would seem to indicate participation was less than fully voluntary.

    9. At the threat of strikes, sure. At the threat of vandalism, assault, or government involvement, no.

    10. Query: shouldn’t it be the right of the unions to negotiate a contract with private business owners that requires the owner to collect union dues?

      It should be, yes. But until the NLRA is repealed — i.e., when private business owners are no longer FORCED to associate with unions in the first place — then we might as well applaud tweaks to the system that expand freedom for some of the folks involved.

      1. Oh, Colonel Angus pretty much just said the same thing right below me here.

  7. “Right to work” wouldn’t be necessary without laws that force employers and employees to put up with union shit.

    1. No employer is forced to enter into a CBA. Is the NLRB/NLRA a big fucking statist program? Yes, but RTW laws further constrain Freedom of Association.

      1. On net, I don’t think they do.

        They give every employee complete freedom of association with respect to the union.

        They don’t allow companies to require employees to join the union.

        Not perfect, but could be worse. Could be closed shop.

        1. “Closed shop” represents freedom of contract. The fact that a majority of workers can impose their will on an employer by forcing him to bargain with a union is statist; it is even further statist, however, to prohibit that employer from making his employees follow certain conditions to work at a place.

          1. That’s not quite right…

            Under current law, unions can exercise (but aren’t required to) the power to “represent” every employee in a bargaining unit. Once they do that, they also force the company to bargain with them, and federal law even requires certain terms to be negotiated and discussed. If the company refuses to bargain, or even says “we will never ever agree to…” then they will be found guilty of breaking federal labor law.

            How can anything that comes out of a system where unions (1) use federal law to force all employees into their ranks, (2) force a company to negotiate with them, and (3) use federal law to demand that the company “negotiate in good faith” over certain things (like a union forced dues clause); ever be considered freedom of contract. It’s the most statist system ever, and (in the words of Robert Reich) it lets unions “tie employees to the mast.”

            If unions wanted to repeal all federal labor law (that gives them all this power) then maybe we could take their complaints about freedom of contract seriously… but they never would, because they know the only reason they get forced dues to begin with is the coercion of federal law.

            1. This.

          2. Even if there are employers in RTW states who miss the good old days of being forced to run a closed shop once a union took hold (and I really doubt there are), I think RTW is much more beneficial to employers than the right to negotiate a contract with a union and then require employees to make what are essentially political contributions to the union.

            I’m very comfortable with preventing employers from telling employees or anyone else how they can spend their earnings. (I don’t like the government or bleeding-heart Occutards doing this, either.)

            The most successful businesses are able to hire the best employees for the job, not merely the best employees they can find who are either delusionally pro-union or cowed enough by the union that they’ll pay dues.

            RTW allows employers to get much closer to hiring the best employees for the job. It makes them more competitive; it makes it easier for them to run a business.

            When the majority of employers stand up and say they want a union to be able to extort dues out of their employees, I’ll stand corrected. But I doubt this is the case.

        2. I think RBM’s point is that no employer is forced to use a closed shop, so the legislation is aimed at a strawman.

          1. If it’s aimed at a strawman, then why are unions pissed off?

            1. Because it’s punishing them for a problem they weren’t creating, i.e. forcing employers into closed shops.

              Now they’re not going to be allowed to set up a closed shop, even if the employer wants to. The strawman problem was, “Unions are forcing themselves onto businesses who have no choice but to accept them.” But as RBM has pointed out, that’s not accurate: no business is forced by law to accept a closed shop.

              1. But as RBM has pointed out, that’s not accurate: no business is forced by law to accept a closed shop.

                WTF are you talking about? In non-RTW states, if 51%+ of the employees vote to unionize, then all the employees in that class are forced into collective bargaining.

          2. I’ve got some problem with employees being compelled to fund political organizations like unions. I don’t know that the RTW laws are a good thing, but the states that legally favor such compulsion seem wrongheaded to me.

            1. I’ve got some problem with employees being compelled to fund political organizations like unions.

              The issue is, should the employer be allowed to make that a condition of working for him/her. I would say “yes”, because that’s freedom of contract. RTW takes away the right of an employer to enforce a closed shop if he should so choose.

              1. I’m no labor law expert, but with federal laws favoring unions along with public unions, I don’t think freedom of contract is really happening, anyway. Not to mention all of the unrelated laws that limit the ability of businesses to hire and fire people at will.

                1. I hear you, but I don’t think the answer to bad legislation is more bad legislation from another direction.

                  The answer is to repeal the existing bad legislation.

                  1. A lot of the problem is at the federal level. Might be doable in this climate with an all-GOP government, though I doubt it.

                    1. A lot of the problem is at the federal level.

                      Time for an Indiana Resolution.

                      Working slightly better for KY&VA; than it did for SC.

          3. Do you guys actually believe there’s any company that wants to be closed shop? Mandatory unions are a form of monopoly and price fixing and should not be permitted.

            1. Do you guys actually believe there’s any company that wants to be closed shop?

              There are all kinds of small-scale botique manufacturers who proudly advertise that they’re union.

              The answer isn’t to assume that we know what any employer wants or doesn’t want, but to let that employer decide for themselves.

              1. Yeah except once a union is in place the company doesn’t have the option of deciding they no longer want one.

                If they need help with the employment process or finding qualified employees they can use a staffing agency. I have trouble seeing a reason a company would want to be union other than possibly using it as an advertising scheme to attract union customers.

                Plus aren’t unions usually formed based on a vote by employees and not because the company asked for a union to come in and organize their workers?

                1. I have trouble seeing a reason a company would want to be union other than possibly using it as an advertising scheme to attract union customers.

                  Some small botique manufacturers do take that route.

                  Again, it doesn’t matter if we can see the sense in it or not, and it’s not our place to decide what an employer actually does or doesn’t want. That should strictly be between the employer and his employees.

                  1. Nevermind, after reading your other comments I’ve come to realize that you honestly believe that companies choose to be unionized. You need to do a little more research on how unions are started.

                    1. So all the websites with slogans like, “Proudly Union-Made!” are just employers who had their arms twisted? I can do the google search for you, if you want me to.

                      And you’re the one claiming to have perfect knowledge of what every business owner in America wants. I think I’m the reasonable one here for just saying, “I don’t know and I think it should be left up to them.” You’re wanting to come in with gov’t intervention to say, “Just because I can’t imagine why anyone would disagree with me, we should have laws enforcing my point of view.”

                    2. So if I can’t think if any reason someone might choose to take an action then it should be ok for me to outlaw that action.

                      Lets double down on being wrong.

                    3. JaE, I do know several companies who, as I pointed out above, essentially use the local as their staffing agency. The union provides workers guaranteed to a certain standard at a certain rate. I may not know what a welder with “5 years experience” has done, but if I contract for a journeyman welder, I’ll get a minimum quality. I’m not pro-union, but it makes sense for them to work as vocational certifications, and makes sense for talented people to join them. The problem is that there’s such a huge variety between, say, the Teamsters and Inatl Brotherhood of Electricians in what union membership means.

          4. Try firing someone for organizing a union and see if it is a strawman or not.

            1. Wal-Mart quite successfully fended them off.

            2. Hell, I even had to watch anti-union videos when starting work for a call-center as a part-time job in college.

              If (private sector) unions were really as all-powerful as people here seem to think, then every non-right to work state would have practically every industry unionized. Fact is, (again excluding public unions, which I have a very different opinion about) very few workers are unionized outside of a few major industries, even with all these laws you claim make it impossible to stop them.

              1. Walmart works around it. But if they said “If you think about organizing a union, you will be fired” they would be in all kinds of trouble.

                Not to mention the bullshit “negotiate in good faith” bullshit. As a business owner, if I want to refuse to negotiate with a union or to negotiate in “bad faith” (whatever the fuck that means), then I should be allowed.

                If the union wants me to deduct union dues from members, I should be able to take the list of members they give me and fire the lot of them (unless I contracted otherwise).

                1. I completely agree with you.

                  The answer is to repeal the legislation forcing you into those situations, not to pass yet more regulation purporting to tell you how you may or may not conduct your business (if you wanted to set up a closed shop for whatever reason).

                  1. Good, so stop telling me Im wrong. Both sides are arguing this wrong, because both sides are wrong.

                    1. Calm down, Francis. Please point out to me where I said, “You’re wrong.”

                      My position the entire time has been, “The legislation as it exists is bad, but this is also bad, so we should find a different way to work it out”.

                    2. Granted. Because you were wrong. You even admitted it (“Walmart works around it.”) Therefore, Wal-Mart is able to resist unionization, even in pro-union states. That is a counter example to your suggestion that unions are capable of forcing themselves onto any company whether they want it or not (hence declaring that the problem is unions is not actually a strawman, as I initially stated).

                      Also, that has no bearing on the other statements you made after that, all of which I agreed with.

                    3. Therefore, Wal-Mart is able to resist unionization, even in pro-union states.

                      Not every employer has the deep pockets to do what Wal-Mart has: the only location that successfully unionized had that store permanently shut down pour encourageur les autres.

                      And Wal-Mart’s lawyer bills for finding creative ways of routing around these laws to be in technical compliance have to be pretty damn high.

                      Not as easy to do if you only have the one store.

                      The wonder is that, with the huge thumb on the scales that is current union laws, so few private employees are unionized.

                    4. Granted. Because you were wrong. You even admitted it (“Walmart works around it.”) Therefore, Wal-Mart is able to resist unionization, even in pro-union states.

                      He wasn’t wrong. He said that if Walmart tried firing people who tried to unionize they’d be in trouble, and he was correct in saying that.

                      And yes, by skillful use of propaganda and anti-union countermeasures, Walmart is able to avoid having its workers vote to join a union (for now). Your statement was that “NO company is forced to accept a union”, so you can’t cite one of the slickest, most wiley companies out there as proof of your negation.

                2. I would suggest that joining a union is ground from immediate firing since obviously you are more interested in your salary than your work.

          5. I think RBM’s point is that no employer is forced to use a closed shop

            You mean “union shop”, and yes, they are forced to use it after a worker referendum favoring the union.

      2. but RTW laws further constrain Freedom of Association.

        Yeah cuz being non-union and being forced to pay union dues is associating right?

      3. No employer is forced to enter into a CBA.

        Um, excuse me? Yes, they are; after an election favoring the union, they have to negotiate within a strict time window or close up shop.

      4. No employer is forced to enter into a CBA.

        Huh? Do you know anything about federal labor law?

        1. (I would say, “Jinx!” to Tulpa, except his comment was posted nearly a half-hour before mine…)

  8. I’m in Indy right now. Tomorrow I’m going to the SB village they’ve created downtown.

    Hopefully I can stir up some snark.

    1. Sorry, but WE run the snark racket in this town.

  9. It will be hilarious to watch on TV when union cops have to crack the skulls of union thugs running on the field. Irony thou art a heartless bitch.

  10. “Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, a Democrat, called the notion that many employers would be attracted to Indiana because of the law a myth. “Right-to work is a race to the bottom, it’s a downward spiral to lower wages and fewer benefits,” Simpson said.

    He may be right or he may be wrong…”

    FYI: Vi Simpson is a woman.

  11. I would like to see the union (extortionists/commies/progressives) shutdown the Super Bowl. LOL, it would be great entertainment.

    1. Why can you idiots never settle on an insult? They’re not all the same thing… it suggests you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

      1. It is possible to have contempt for more than one group of similar a-holes at a time.

        1. Especially when they are all in bed together sucking each other off.

      2. Tony|2.1.12 @ 7:08PM|#
        “Why can you idiots never settle on an insult?”
        Shithead, we try to be inclusive here. And quite often, as in your case, all three apply.

  12. Somebody once told me (and I am too lazy to verify) that Teddy Roosevelt was very close to banning American football and wanted to push for rugby instead. There is a reason the rest of world does not play American football, and its not because of American exceptionalism…

    1. It’s because the rest of the world is a bunch of pussies who don’t understand how manly it is for men to run around in spandex and jump on top of each other.

      1. But why do they have to wear body armour ? In Rugby they also jump on top of each other. Is this because of some nanny state rule or did they always wear all those things since the beginning ?

        1. Any time football is being discussed, as soon as somebody uses the term “Armor”, they should be told to fuck off.

          Fuck off, Euroweenie.

          1. WHy is it called football? It’s more of a handegg.

        2. Rugby players don’t hit as hard as American football players. They can’t because they’d break their own body into pieces trying to hit some one at full speed without pads of their own. Especially at the weight most NFL players run around at. The “armor” works both ways. It allows you to take hits but it allows you to hit a lot harder as well.

          This isn’t to say Rugby isn’t a tough sport but the impacts they receive aren’t even close to what NFL players receive on almost every play.

          1. Rugby is fun to watch.

    2. Teddy Roosevelt was very close to banning American football

      I’ve heard that too; it’s said to be due to the massive numbers of serious injuries caused by the early rules of football. But I am pretty baffled since the Commerce Clause wasn’t read as expansively back then. The feds could only have banned games between colleges in different states and by the military academies.

      iirc, the NCAA did significantly change the rules of the game to force the players to spread out on the field due to concerns about safety. It was those rule changes that put an emphasis on the forward pass, which had previously been rarely used.

      1. “But I am pretty baffled since the Commerce Clause wasn’t read as expansively back then.”
        Why would that bother TR?

        1. This.

          Teddy’s approach would be to go ahead and ban it and see if anyone resisted.

          The only difference between him and our current politicians on that front is that Mr. Roosevelt has some personal style and masculinity.

          1. “Oh, Mr. President, don’t let the taint of legality….”
            Was it Hay?

    3. I don’t think the President can ban a college sport, but – it was a very different game 110 years ago. Lots of college kids were dying.

      If 20 college football players died last season, how fast do you think it would get fixed or abolished?

  13. The freedom of contract argument seems to need support from employers wanting closed shops.

    Are US/State businesses free to say no to closed shops? Up in Canada various small franchises closed outlets after unionisation, their only way out.

    1. Closed shops (ie, workplaces where they can only hire current union members) are illegal under the 1947 Taft-Hartley revision of NLRA.

      You’re probably thinking of union shops (where everyone who works there has to join the union after 30 days). There’s a significant difference, since in a closed shop the union actually has control over who can get hired.

      1. “There’s a significant difference, since in a closed shop the union actually has control over who can get hired.”
        The difference is that by denying membership, they can control who gets hired 30 days later.

        1. They can’t deny membership to someone who already works there.

          1. “They can’t deny membership to someone who already works there.”
            Strange.
            When the union denied my membership application for reasons of “Inexperience” they somehow missed that restriction.
            You might be mistaking the intent for the result.

      2. That’s a very good example of “a distinction without a difference”.

        1. Sorry, no.

          Closed shop = the union has to approve you for employment

          Union shop = you can get the job without consent from the union

  14. You don’t get to link to ideological sources for evidence. That’s now how that works. Any study that describes policies as “anti-business” and “pro-business” are pointless.

    1. Well, fuck. Maybe everyone with a job should be forced to join a union, then.

      /snark

      1. Reason could link to girlsfromipanema.com as their source and that would be their right. You think they are lying, then invest everything you got into California, the government officials there are adamant the place has a golden future.

        1. Hey, don’t drag me into this.

          1. ^ That’s why I read all of the posts…

    2. Tony|2.1.12 @ 5:57PM|#
      “You don’t get to link to ideological sources for evidence.”
      A lying, sleazy shithead tells others what they may link?
      Oh, good.

      1. Watch Tony “link to ideological sources” when it’s convenient for his Team.

  15. My prediction, 45 to 13, Pats over New York.

    1. My prediction? Pain.

    2. What disgusting thing will you do if you’re wrong? How about Warty gets to rape you?

      “Look, I know it’s been a while, alright, but, uh, I’m not gonna get humped by a giant red gorilla in space, okay? No thank you.”

      1. WHAT THIS ABOUT RAPE? WARTY RAPEE, NOT RAPER.

        STEVE SMITH LOVE YOU LONG TIME, HIKER KILLAZ. YOU,ME “WALK DOWN ADIRONDACK TRAIL”, IF KNOW WHAT STEVE SMITH SAY.

      2. Great episode.

    3. If I must play, I say Giants, um, 27 – 20. The Patriots have no defense to speak of and the Giants have some.

      1. If Gronkowski stays out, the Patriots are fucked. If Eli is on, it’s going to be tough for the Patriots. If Eli isn’t on, it’s going to be tough for the Giants.

    4. Please use the teams’ Proper Names:

      The Kennedys and The Schumers.

      So you’re picking The Schumers 45-13 over the Kennedys. Good luck with that one. I don’t think so.

      Kennedys 31 Schumers PWNED

      1. oh snap!

  16. Dear Indiana Unions Thinking About Stirring up Shit For Teh Stoopid Bowl,

    DO IT! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO IT!

    Your Pal,
    Almanian, Labellations Mgr

  17. Yall can argue this crap in theory all day long. Anyone who has ever had to deal directly with Unions during a strike knows that they are scum of the earth.

  18. This “One of a Kind” show on Velocity (nee HD Channel) is giving me a boner.

    ’37 Talbot Lago, now a ’54 Pininfarina Cadillac show car. Last week a GORGEOUS Delage and the “Mormon Meteor” Duesenberg (timely) – wonderful cars.

    Boiyoyoyoyoyoying!

    1. Damn… the Barrett auctions must give you wetness, Almanian.

  19. In all honesty a super bowl disrupted by unions would be more entertaining then a regular super bowl.

    1. If they only disrupt the halftime show while leaving the rest of the game intact, I might flip-flop on card check.

  20. I don’t know why you’re worried about the Super Bowl product. It’s made by union workers, so obviously of inferior worth.

    1. Pathetic douchetroll is pathetic.

    2. Your comments are so uniquely insightful, Tiny, it brings tears to my eyes!

      Either that, or the dry air.

  21. …one thing is for certain: Unions won’t win friends and influence Americans by ruining the Super Bowl.

    They will if they manage to derail Madonna’s halftime performance.

    1. So you don’t want to see her areolas?

    2. They will if they manage to derail Madonna’s halftime performance.

      I don’t think that qualifies as “ruining”

  22. A union electrician pulling the plug in the middle of Grammy Award Winner Sh’Anita’s five-minute gospel version of The Star Spangled Banner would be too sublime to even contemplate, but a guy can dream, can’t he?

  23. Unions won’t win friends and influence Americans by ruining the Super Bowl.

    Which means the Unions won’t do it. At least, not the private sector unions.

  24. Union activists…are threatening to stop the Super Bowl in Indianapolis on Sunday in protest.

    Really? Which ones? Citation? Names? Quotes?

    1. Non exists.

      No one would dream of shutting down the stuperbowl.

    2. Actually yes…

      “Protest organizers told RTV6 they plan to try to block entrances to Lucas Oil Stadium before Sunday’s game, while Teamsters President Jeff Combs said the union will use trucks to disrupt getting into and out of the stadium or at least the general area.”

      Source: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/30352846/detail.html

  25. We’ll see where salaries go. It is obvious that if a company wants to treat each employees gripe as an “isolated incident” as oppose to allowing them to collectively bargain…there’s only one way salaries will go.

  26. a race to the bottom? Um, we are already there.

  27. Off topic, but Ron Paul is a Nazi sympathizer.

    1. And Obama is a Commie. What’s your point?

      1. Has to be a Max spoof. Way too short a post, no heart to it, and he’d never be that nice about Ron Paul.

        Plus, the motherfucker would post anti-Paul bullshit in a thread about knitting, so the “off-topic” part kinda gives it away.

  28. NFL players are NFLPA union members. I’m not sure what the terms of opting-in or out of this union are, but this looks like a union against union battle.

    1. Boom! Hey don’t use logic around here.

    2. Well, no.
      The NFL and/or the SB are employers who happen to employ some people who are union members. As, for instance, does the stadium.
      Some will get paid regardless. Some wouldn’t, depending on the contract(s).
      If it’s X against Y, it’s bone-headed union reps against those several businesses plus a *WHOLE LOT* of folks who plan a Sunday around watching the game, or pretending to do so while socializing.
      The union reps would be wise to chose their fights; they could hardly do worse than shutting down the SB.

  29. Like Gojira and a few others I too am uncomfortable with the seeming violation of the freedom of contract between employer and union that RTW seems to create.

    I’ve seen the argument above that the employees have a right to be free of forced unionization, but it isn’t really forced is it? I mean, as libertarians often say in the sexual harassment argument, you don’t have a right to a job and no one’s pointing a gun at your head making you take this job.

    So the employee is free to accept a welding job that garnishes his pay or free to move on. Or her pay if we’re in the eigthies and some girl is trying to get into dance school… but I digress.

    My question is about how union shops come about in the private sector since Gojira seems to be saying that private employers before RTW could essentially be forced to accept unionisation.

    How does that work. If the workers at a company ask their employer to accept their union and the employer says no, what’s the next thing that happens (be it legal, extra legal, semi-legal) to force that private employer to become a union shop?

    Final question: Why couldn’t the solution be to address the issue of compulsion rather than the employer’s right to contract with the union?

    ___________

    I think it’s funny that so many libertarians here basically shrug off the contract rights violation as ‘all things in balance’ but won’t accept that reasoning at all on things like sexual harassment, affirmative action and the 1964 civil rights law.

    1. I guess maybe the nice thing about it is that both sides have something to bitch about, so that there’s a remote possibility of a compromise that removes both pro- and anti-union intervention. Doubtful, since unions are going to be biased toward intervention, period, statist fucks that they are.

    2. “I think it’s funny that so many libertarians here basically shrug off the contract rights violation as ‘all things in balance’ but won’t accept that reasoning at all on things like sexual harassment, affirmative action and the 1964 civil rights law.”

      I’ll bet you do.
      You seem to have missed that all three of the regulations you mention *introduced* restrictions in contract where none existed before.
      Careful with those strawmen; you could get burned.

      1. No Sevo, that was my point. Those 3 examples are just as restrictive on contract as RTW, but RTW gets a pass and they don’t among the reason commentariat and event he reason staff. (generally speaking) Ron and Rand Paul are ven dying on the hill of 1964 because they’re so dedicated to principle.

        I hate most of the effects of modern unions too, but I think it’s wrong to just shrug off right to work as ‘wrong in principle but good for getting them union farts’.

        1. Nevermind my post above, I just noticed where your asterixes are.

          You’re right that the three cases I cite are different in that they don’t amend a previous contract restriction, but the idea that you’re violating principle still apllies I think.

          1. “You’re right that the three cases I cite are different in that they don’t amend a previous contract restriction, but the idea that you’re violating principle still apllies I think.”

            Agreed; the ideal is to remove *all* restrictions. In this case the restrictions seem to be reduced (AFAIK; I asked for clarification below, and got, well, not much)

    3. My question is about how union shops come about in the private sector since Gojira seems to be saying that private employers before RTW could essentially be forced to accept unionisation.

      With all due respect, I have to say I’m kind of stunned at the ignorance many have about the basic nature of labor law.

      Employers are “forced to accept unionisation” when 50.00001% of the human beings they’ve happened to hire decide to form a union.

      I start a hot dog stand. I hire Jane, Dick and Jumbie. Jane and Dick vote to start a union. I am now forced to “accept” this union: I must negotiate a contract with it and then “bargain” on this contract for the rest of infinity.

      And you, Jumbie, are forced to be represented by Jane and Dick’s union unless you (A) quit the job or (B) live in a right-to-work state.

      1. Just so you guys know, today is the first time I actually looked into what RTW was so I have questions.

        So you’re saying that in the other 27 states 49% of workers at a private company can be forced to have their wages garnished by a simple vote because *the laws says the employer MUST accept the union* as the representative of all workers once the >50% votes for it?

        In other words the arrangement between the union and the employer is not a voluntary contract, so right to work isn’t necessarily prohibiting a voluntary contract.

        I still think that the ideal fix is simply not forcing the employers to recognise the unions as the rep for all employees. If the legilsature has enough juice to pass RTW into law, don’t they have enough juice to simply reverse the compulsion aspect of the law and let it be?

  30. Gojira, RBM,
    No snark.
    What are the specific restrictions RTW laws place on employer/employee contracts?

    1. From da wiki:

      The NLRA requires that employees must be given at least 30 days from the date of hire to join the union before they may be subject to being fired for failure to join the union or pay dues; shorter periods apply in the construction industry. The RLA gives employees 60 days to join the union. The union cannot, however, require that an employee become a member “in good standing”: do more than pay dues or their equivalent. While a union shop agreement that, by its literal terms, requires an employee to become a member in good standing might appear to be unlawful on its face and therefore unenforceable, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have uniformly interpreted such clauses to require no more than what the law permits (such as payment of dues).

      Under United States labor law, a private sector union can expel a member from the union for any number of reasons, so long as it provides the member with the minimum due process required by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and does not do so for reasons prohibited by law (such as the member’s race or protected political activities within the union). The union cannot, on the other hand, use a union shop agreement to require an employer to discharge a member for failure to maintain membership in good standing unless that member has been expelled from the union for failure to pay uniformly required union dues and fees. If the union expels a member for some reason other than failure to pay dues, it effectively terminates any right it might have had to demand that the employee pay dues thereafter or request that the employee be discharged for failure to do so.

      1. Well, Tulpa, yeah, I can find Wiki.
        Let me try this again:
        What are the specific restrictions RTW laws place on employer/employee contracts?

  31. If the workers at a company ask their employer to accept their union and the employer says no, what’s the next thing that happens (be it legal, extra legal, semi-legal) to force that private employer to become a union shop?

    The workers (employees) are individuals, not a collective. When you say “the workers ask”, you really mean >50% percent of them. That’s democracy in action, but a business is not amenably to democracy . Even the most benevolent, fair-minded employer will struggle with the problem of a union contract that forces him to pay some employees more than they produce. A business will not be viable and no one will have a job if there are too many negative value employees. No hate on democracy, but in business, accounting trumps democracy. That’s the nature of it.

    1. “No hate on democracy, but in business, accounting trumps democracy.”
      In government, the same is true. That’s the reason the founders of the US government made it a republic.

    2. If autocracy is good for business, why not for the country?

      1. Tony|2.1.12 @ 11:13PM|#
        “If autocracy is good for business, why not for the country?”

        If stupidity is good for shithead, why not for…….
        Oh, wait. Stupidity isn’t even good for shithead. But shithead is stupid enough not to know that, right, shithead?
        Got any more strawmen this evening, shithead?

      2. Tony,

        Businessmen are not autocrats. An autocrat takes no financial risks, he has no skin in the game of business.

  32. Disrupt the SuperBowl? Are they hell-bent on destroying the last vestiges of public support for the labor movement?

    I’m not a football fan, so I hope they try it. It would be the end of the road for a lot of mobsters.

    -jcr

  33. the last time somebody tried to do that, it was muslim terrorists turned into nazi terrorists because muslim terrorists would be un-pc in a hollywood movie starring mr jennifer garner

  34. fwiw, i am forced to join the union and pay union dues. iirc, there is some kind of mechanism wherein somebody can refuse to join, but it’s complicated, iiuc, and i think they have to donate a similar amount of money to some other cause or something. frankly, i’m not really sure exactly how the opt-out procedure works, if at all

    PERSONALLY, i love my union, they do great things, they do not support cops who were obviously in the wrong, they do not get involved in political causes they should not, and we have excellent lawyers and representation to represent our rights against the heavy hand of management

    but if it is not de jure involuntary, it’s de facto

    1. No offense dunphy, but it is fucking bullshit for you to have someone collectively bargain for you with the very people you (or the union) donate campaign funds to / vote for.

  35. I will probably watch the Puppy Bowl instead.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.