Big Temporary Networks
bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Wed Sep 19 00:18:34 UTC 2012
> From: William Herrin <bill at 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 at mail.r-bonomi.com>
> > '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
> > 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
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
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.
More information about the NANOG