Ok, as exciting as this all has been, it's grossly off topic now. Please retire the conversation to direct emails if you all want to keep arguing over it, m'kay? Thanks... -george On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:04:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act, only prevents a union contract that requiures union membership as a PRE-REQUISITE for being hired. What is called 'closed shop' -- where employment is closed to those who are not union members. It does -not- prevent a 'union ship' -- where employees are required to join the union within a reasonable period =after= being hired.
The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops nationwide. It further authorized individual states to outlaw union shops and/or agency shops. 23 states, including my fine home state of Virginia, have done so.
"False to fact" on the last point. Many of the right-to-work states do -not- proscribe union shops. Thoe that do, almost invariably allow for an automatic/involuntary payroll deduction from non-union members covered by a collective bargaining agreement, payable to the union involved, which was a pro rata share of the direct costs of negotiting the collective agreement.
Right-to-work also does not prevent an organization from requiring, by contractual agreement, that third parties performing work ON THE 0ORGANIZATION'S PREMISES, employ "union labor" for _that_ work. It cannot specify _what_ union (or local) however.
In Illinois, which has not enacted a state right-to-work law, that's correct.
Illinois, not having right-to-work, is irrelevant. <grin>
In IOWA, where I grew up, and which has one of the strongest right-to-work laws in the country, "union shops" _are_ legal. As are 'on-site' union labor requirements. The family business (PR consulting) was heavily involved with the state Manufacturers Association (and the national org), and several other associations of large employers. I had access to *LOTS* of detailed info on the state of right-to-work, and collective- bargaining practices nation-wide. My remarks apply to the vast majority of right-to-work states.
In Virginia, which has, there was just recently a big hullabaloo where the airports authority tried (and spectacularly failed) to place a union preference rule in their contracting process where bids from union shops would have a 10% preference versus bids from non union shops.
Government entities run into all sorts of difficulties with _any_ such 'preference' biases in the bidding/contracting process -- there are statutory requirements to accept the lowest-price 'qualified' bid, with lots of supporting case law on 'fiduciary responsibility' of public monies -- _unless_ there is a demonstrable _compelling_ public policy reason to include scuh a preference. *VERY* few such survive a court challenge -- a 'set-aside' of a portion of the contracts for the 'preferred' group tends to have an equivalent effect and is much less expensive to implement. (a few percentage points on, say, 10-15% of the contracts is *far* less wasteful than circa 10% on _all_ contracts)
I don't know of _any_ such bidding/contract 'preference' that has -not- been challenged in the courts. By a 'discrimminated against' vendor, in the case of government enditie, or by shareholders, in the case of private entities.
I don't _think_ anybody has challenged hiring preferences for U.S. armed forces veterans, but I wouldn't be surprised if it _had_ been.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com