Big Temporary Networks

George Herbert george.herbert at
Wed Sep 19 01:05:13 UTC 2012

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?



On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi at> wrote:
>> From: William Herrin <bill at>
>> 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>
>> 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 at

More information about the NANOG mailing list