U.S. Department of Labor - Articles - Zimbio

Railroad Retirement and Unions

Sat, 22 Apr 2007 19:59:00 GMT

posted by Xman

Railroad retirement can be a bit confusing. The best resource I have found for explaining it can be found at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/sspus/railroad.pdf You can also visit http://www.rrb.gov/ to explore anything you would like to know about railroad retirement. The other helpful sites for those of us going into Train Service are Union Related. There are two unions serving Train Service employees. The first is the United Transportation Union (UTU) and the other is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET).

Welcome to our blog about U.S. Department of Labor

Wed, 24 Aug 2006 19:26:32 GMT

posted by The_Zimbio_Team
This is our group blog, which is unique because any Zimbio member can post an entry to it. Some members blog about recent news and trends related to the portal topic, others recount relevant personal stories. You can also comment on and rate existing blog entries, to voice your opinion and to help the community identify which members and entries on the portal are must-reads. Got an interesting idea or story to share with other members of this portal? Well, then put on your journalist's cap and add your own blog entry!

Do you have the right to work?

Sat, 6 Apr 2008 04:22:43 GMT

posted by danjarvis

Imagine applying for a job at a major U.S. corporation – only to discover that a condition of your employment is that you join a union.

No big deal, right?

What if, however, you discover that not only will the union require a slice of your paycheck; it will also take that slice and fund groups and causes you strongly disagree with? Your union dues, paid supposedly to protect you (the worker) from those nasty, evil employers (the people who give you your job) are being used to support politicians with which you morally disagree.

Can you opt out?

In twenty-three American states (as of April 2008), the answer is no. Either you submit to the union or you are sent home. Something about that just doesn’t smell right to me.

I once was walking through Washington D.C. and stumbled into a union demonstration. I was approached and rather coarsely asked if I was "for" or "against" unions. "Neither," I answered. "I'm for America." (I admit, that's a cheesy-cliche type answer, but it worked, and the guy left me alone!)

Honestly, I really do hold to that view. I have nothing against unions, nor do I have anything particularly for them. I'm for what works, for what gets the job done, for what keeps America humming along.

I know there is a legitimate place for unions. When they were founded, they brought accountability to the workplace that was sorely needed, and they improved the conditions and safety of the workforce. But, as with most human endeavors, there are excesses (particularly when the government gets involved). Sometimes unionized employees demanding disproportionately high pay make it impossible for owners to turn a profit, forcing plant closures and even bankruptcy. And then there is this pesky political issue. Why should Joe Democrat be forced into supporting a Republican candidate, or Sally Republican be forced to contribute to the campaign of a liberal? (The latter is the more common scenario.)

A national “right-to-work” law would free all Americans to choose the employers and/or unions that suit them. If union membership is as helpful as organizers claim, I’d imagine that people would be flocking to sign up. Productivity would increase as well, since unionized employees would have to compete against non-union employees – and this would undoubtedly breed improvements in efficiency and innovation.

Some of the arguments against right-to-work laws are valid concerns – unions note that workers in a partially-unionized shop are often treated equally; thus, the non-union employees are getting the benefits of unionization without paying any dues. While this point is perhaps the strongest that the unions present, I don't think it overcomes the objections of conscience and liberty. Then again, maybe the point isn't so strong after all -- don't a whole host of non-union-influenced employers give great benefits and pay great wages too?

While I’m no expert, here’s what I see:

- America was built on individualism, not collectivism (Communists called their Soviet empire a “union” for a reason - think about it). I don’t want to be paid based on what everyone else is doing; I want to be paid based on what I’m doing. If I excel, pay me more. If I slack, fire me or cut my pay. That’s what individual responsibility is all about.

- America has changed over the past century. We’re competing on a global scale, and most of us aren’t employed by the “big” companies anymore. Employers will keep offering great benefits and increasing pay in order to attract great employees – thus, unions may not be as necessary as they once were. The reality is that if any of us today, in 2008, got mistreated by an employer, our resume would be floating on Internet job sites by 6:00 p.m.

- American workers should be free to unionize – and free not to. It doesn’t seem right that unions should wield such great political power by forcing workers who don’t agree with them to pay the bills. A truly great movement will inspire people to participate without forcing anything upon them.

- Is compulsory union membership any different than compulsory church membership? I thought Western civilization already learned this lesson.

There is a group that has been working on this issue for quite some time, and they've made a significant amount of progress. You can check them out at http://www.nrtwc.org/.

As we seek to lay out a welcome mat for American business in the coming century, I think this would be a healthy step to take. I’d be interested in your comments.

So much for jobs losses caused by mininum-wage increases....

Sun, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 GMT

posted by iludiumphosdex

CERTAIN PRO-BUSINESS ELEMENTS ON K STREET CAN ALWAYS BE EXPECTED TO ACT IN PROPAGANDA LOCKSTEP anytime Congress or state legislatures propose increases in the mininum wage companies pay to especially entry-level workers.

The most common patsy thus deployed will be that which claims that every time the mininum wage is increased, companies are forced to let workers go just to keep costs down and maintain value for money--even if it means resorting to creative patsies which conceal the real reasons.

Which lies on its face when you consider that studies have shown where mininum-wage increases have actually had the opposite effect--as in creating jobs and increasing payrolls, in turn increasing revenue from PAYE ("pay-as-you-earn") deductions for withholding taxes and Social Security contributions.

In turn, prompting some interesting questions as may want to be asked of that ilk:

How many companies do you know of that have actually had to let go unskilled workers in particular (including such employable only because of workfare or targeted-assistance employment schemes) following, or because of, mininum-wage increases?
What reasons were given to the employees affected in explaining their dismissal (as in avoiding the obvious and otherwise risking charges of improper dismissal)?
Could the "official" reasons for dismissal be factually substantiated?
How many of those thus dismissed were:

National Minorities?
women?
disabled workers?
those employed because of workfare or other targeted assistance schemes (e.g., Vocational Rehabilitation, School-to-Work, Displaced Worker Retraining, Veterans' Readjustment) where tax incentives and/or wage subsidies in lieu of traditional welfare benefits may be available to employers?

How many of the world's "developed" countries do you know of where no mininum-wage laws or policies exist, instead having such formulated by industry-sponsored groups on a "best practice" basis?
Would such opposition to the mininum wage also include support for "complete and final" denationalisation of State Social Security? How are the two interrelated?

You know where to leave the answers....