Re: Big Temporary Networks

[George Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com>]

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