Coercion

I often and vigorously bash unions for the coercive techniques they use to gain membership and then take money.  All in the name of political power for democrats.

While it’s true that I dislike unions for this, among other, reasons, I also don’t like the practice when used by a corporation:

The Pepper Pike company that owns the Century Mine told workers that attending the Aug. 14 Romney event would be both mandatory and unpaid, a top company official said Monday morning in a West Virginia radio interview.

A group of employees who feared they’d be fired if they didn’t attend the campaign rally in Beallsville, Ohio, complained about it to WWVA radio station talk show host David Blomquist. Blomquist discussed their beefs on the air Monday with Murray Energy Chief Financial Officer Rob Moore.

Moore told Blomquist that managers “communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend.” He said the company did not penalize no-shows.

Garbage.

 

2 responses to “Coercion

  1. I’ll defend union practices, but then walk back some of that defense.

    Originally due to the power of corporations, they could create incentives for people not to join unions (pay them more, give them perks) in order to break the union, and then treat everyone worse. That meant that people could become ‘free riders’ for awhile (not paying union dues, maybe getting perks). That would also weaken union negotiating power. While unions had little power and the owners had most of it, I think forcing all to join made sense.

    Now I think that if a place unionizes, I’m open to the idea that people should not be forced to join the union in every case. Still, union negotiated contracts should apply for everyone (meaning that the owners can’t use perks to ply people away). The free rider problem still exists, though. Since union shops tend to have higher paid workers with more protection, those who don’t join get those benefits without paying for the work the union does on their behalf. That doesn’t seem right. On the other hand, employees not in the union don’t get the same protection, legal advice, information and the like if they have problems with management. I also think corporations should be prohibited from anti-union actions, something Walmart and others have engaged in to try to prevent unionization.

    • That would also weaken union negotiating power. While unions had little power and the owners had most of it, I think forcing all to join made sense.

      If people wanna unite, I’m all for it. What I object to is legal collective bargaining combined with the legal right to strike.

      Since union shops tend to have higher paid workers with more protection, those who don’t join get those benefits without paying for the work the union does on their behalf. That doesn’t seem right.

      What do you think of the fact that union member’s dues are extorted from the members and then used to elect democrats? How about the republican employee’s desire to elect HIS candidate of choice?

Leave a Reply