Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reality is Indiana has the votes to get RTW through, so like many of the ten additional states considering RTW, they can whine all they like. It won't stop progress.
After Indiana Democrats ended a legislative boycott, the Republican-controlled state House today approved a so-called right-to-work measure that forbids unions from collecting fees from non-members for legally required representation.
To avoid another Democratic shutdown of the House, the measure is expected to be voted on by the Republican-controlled Senate, which passed its own version this week, the Star says.
Gov. Mitch Daniels, also a Republican, will sign the bill when it reaches his desk, making Indiana the 23rd "right-to-work" state and the first in the "Rust Belt."
Good Job!! Elections have consequences, don't they?
No, not really, because the UNIONS decide if the employees are going to be forced to join if they work for a unionied company.. Yes they are FORCED to join if the union demands them to if they want a job there.
No, the difference is in right to work states, you can join the union if you want, in a non right to work state, if the company is unionized you HAVE to join in order to work there.
You got that so wrong. It is against federal law to have to join a labor union before you can be hired by a unionized company. It's been that way since the 1940s. Once you're hired, though, the union, if in a state with no right to work, can take money out of your paychecks, whether you're signed up as an actual union member or not. There's not a thing wrong with that, provided you're getting higher pay and better benefits than in an equivalent NON unionized workplace.
It's not a great leap to conclude that one who opposes right-to-work laws has no problem with forced unionization.
Explain why this "forced unionization" is so bad and wrong, if you get a good deal in return, like higher pay and better benefits than found in a non unionized work place? If it's not that way, then the workers can always vote to throw the union out and enjoy a small raise in pay.
Sure, if you like lower wages, you should support Right-To-Work laws. They're guaranteed to lower the wages of working people. It happens every time they're implemented.
I'd be perfectly okay w/ companies paying union vs non-union wages. Let's see what worker is really against union dues when he's making $14/hour and no benefits, and his union co-worker is making $20/hour + bennies...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
