Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday July 22 2016, @06:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-longer-second-class-citizens dept.

Bosses do not need consent for temps to unionize in mixed bargaining units

Working In These Times reports

[In a 3-1 decision,] the National Labor Relations Board on [June 11] overturned a Bush-era standard that said a union could only organize a bargaining unit of jointly employed and regular employees if both employers consented--even if those employees worked together closely. "Jointly employed" includes temps who are hired through staffing agencies.

The new decision allows jointly employed temps to bargain collectively in the same unit with the solely employed workers they work alongside, ruling that bosses need not consent so long as workers share a "community of interest".

[...] In this new ruling from Miller & Anderson, Inc., the Board returns to a standard set in 2000, during the Clinton administration, in a case called M.B. Sturgis, Inc., which was overruled in Oakwood [Care Center].

[...] In a statement announcing the ruling, the NLRB said, "requiring employer consent to an otherwise appropriate bargaining unit desired by employees, Oakwood has ... allowed employers to shape their ideal bargaining unit, which is precisely the opposite of what Congress intended".

The ruling represents a blow to corporations that have moved forcefully, sometimes overwhelmingly, toward using temporary workers in an effort to block worker benefits and collective bargaining.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @04:34AM (#378919)

    If every worker is an owner of the company (and no non-workers can own a part of the company), you can skip over that step.
    The paradigm is called a Worker-Owned Cooperative.
    Professor Wolff likes to call it a Worker Self-Directed Enterprise.
    The one that get mentioned most often (since 1956) is Mondragon in Spain.
    There are currently over 100,000 worker-owners there.
    In Italy, their smart legislators worked up a plan to get this going back in 1985.
    The last count I saw said there were over 8,100 worker-owned co-ops in just 1 region of northern Italy.

    Right. And what do they do for capital? Sell stoc... oh no, can't do that. Get investm... uh, no. Take out loan... no wait, that would involve evil blood-sucking capitalist paper tiger monsters, right? So how do they get their vast factories? Accumulated profit? No, that's capitalist, can't have that. So what is it?

    And where's the one you've started? They're quite legal in the USA. You are in the US, aren't you?

    disallow unions to financially support any candidate
    ...right after rich people and corporations have the same restriction.

    Why? They're qualitatively different. Public companies are responsible to their stockholders, and can be called to account for ill-advised or undesired expenditures. Rich people can spend their own money on their own opinions. Unions spend other people's money on their leadership's agenda. What do you not see that makes this look like the same thing to you?

    (We need a constitutional amendment that makes all political campaigns publicly-funded--and cancels "Citizens United".)
    (It's inherent to the paradigm--which is called "Socialism" AKA "Democracy Everywhere".)

    That's not actually a paradigm. It's just an economic system. And while socialism MIGHT be known to you as democracy everywhere, to me it's known as folly. Evidently, your mileage varies. And frankly, democracy everywhere seems quite iffy. It's not at all clear that democracy is the right fit for every situation. And a lot of people are pretty unhappy with some of its outcomes (Brexit, anyone?) even though it's generally well-regarded on the surface. Also, what about times when democracy is just asking the public's opinion about something the average member of the public is manifestly ill-equipped to judge? Reality isn't a popularity contest. Hell, in my job it's crystal clear that a lot of people in the company are utterly clueless about the foundations of the technology that makes it possible. Sounds like a wonderful recipe for lousy decisions.

    In most union shops, the rules are not that rigidly enforced.
    ...unless owners/managers get tight-assed and a point has to be made.

    Oh, right. So the system is good when it's not followed. Got that. Taking notes here.

    This is analogous to those instances where the Libertarians typically say "You are free to get a job somewhere else" (for a lower wage).
    ...except that the union gives you a fighting chance when negotiating with the megacorporation.

    No, the union gives the union a fighting chance, and the stiffs on the picket lines get to suck down whatever the union reps shake on with the megacorporation. I've been in union shops my friend, I know how it works and I've seen the pointy end coming down in my direction.

    By law, the non-dues-payers must receive all benefits that the union members receive as a result of union negotiations.
    You are supporting "free riders".
    They are no better than leeches

    Maybe they just don't agree with the union? Oh, wait, that's unthinkable. If they disagree it's because they're wrong, and evil, and must be forced to join the union for re-education, and if their union dues are spent on political goals they don't like, that's just equal time, eh comrade?

    unions should never be allowed in government
    The Wrong-Wing concept of rugged individualism is bad fiction.
    Things that are better done collectively/communally are too numerous to list.

    Right, vast list. Got it. Can you list the defining criteria for limited fields of endeavour in which rugged individualists may extend their skills for filthy lucre? Since no true socialist will ever accumulate capital (whether in human, physical or pecuniary form) how are they supposed to do this? Your views intrigue me and I wish to hear all the details. Get specific. Get long. Get detailed.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @07:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @07:27AM (#378952)

    what do they do for capital?

    You weren't interested enough to click the link and find out?
    ...and the point on the top of your head is likely more interesting than your other "points" were.
    You are boring. Bye-bye.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @09:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @09:48PM (#379173)

      It comes down, in the big picture, to grants and loans. Nothing about this is self-sustaining or self-founding. Your proposal depends on someone else first generating the capital. So much for the socialist way.

      And just because you find the points that poke holes in your ideology boring doesn't mean they aren't valid. If people wanted to implement your ideas (because they're SO COOL, right?) then those questions deserve answers: what, why and how?

      Is democracy the right way to run a business? Based on what? What makes it right?

      Why should unions exercise monopoly (or monopsony) power in employment, with respect to management or employees?

      Are unions really functionally identical to the independently wealthy or the great corporations, given their intended roles as intermediaries for the purposes of negotiation? What about the discrepancies where they act as agents to the unwilling?

      Put up or shut up.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:14AM (#379231)

        The seed money is something that was ALREADY EARNED by the workers and is OWED to them from the failed Capitalist system.
        No loans are needed.

        I'd explain it to you but your head is so full of nonsense that I'd have to dredge out all that stupidity before starting to educate you.
        I don't have that kind of time.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:27AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:27AM (#379264)

          Right. Got it. Evil capitalist theft-based system. Accumulation of capital is evil. Except when virtuous workers' cooperatives do it - then it's OK, but riddle me this, o sage: who gets to determine which capital, and how much of that, flows in which directions?

          Or, to put it another way, what dispute resolution mechanism do you recommend for the adjudication of rival claims to given capital resources?

          To give you a more concrete example, let's say that the Workers' Democratic Ironmongery wants to use the same water as the Soviet Peasantry's Farming Collective? Who decides? On what grounds?

          Or, to bring it around to accumulated capital cases, both groups want to use the hydropower output from a wicked capitalist-constructed dam. Who gets how much? Adjudicated by whom? And why? What system of reasoning resolves these conflicts?