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 <bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote: > > >> From: William Herrin <b...@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 <bon...@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.herb...@gmail.com
