U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-20-2012, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
14,746 posts, read 13,251,868 times
Reputation: 4474

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
Why do unions have to push their services upon us. I don't want to be represented. If unions insist on representing me, why should I pay for that?
If you think higher pay and better benefits are wrong to have in a unionized work place, because you are required to pay to help maintain them, then don't wrong yourself by getting hired on in such a place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
14,746 posts, read 13,251,868 times
Reputation: 4474
Quote:
Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear View Post
Something that strikes me as odd about right-to-work is that unions still have to represent non-union employees. Why are employees who don't pay union dues allowed to reap the benefits of having a union?

And from what I've read about right-to-work states, non-union employees are still bound by the union contract. So non-union employees still can't negotiate their own wage and benefits with the company?

From what I'm gathering so far, what a right-to-work law only really does is potentially weaken the union while giving the illusion of power to the worker. Something so absurd can't be right, can it? I'll keep researching.
Unions probably want to look united in the workplace by being required to represent all workers there and so are reluctant to let that requirement go. But once again, what if really boils down to is, if you think you would only be ripped off by the union, then avoid unionized workplaces like the plague. But remember no company, unionized or not, owes you the working conditions you demand beyond what the law requires. Really it doesn't owe anyone a job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
14,746 posts, read 13,251,868 times
Reputation: 4474
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
So let's see, unions force employers to pay benefits that are too high and costly for the employer.
But in rare cases the labor union administers the benefits for employees, saving the company the expense of doing that. Bringing about Right to Work would make doing that illegal. Therefore, such companies likely will be opposed to Right to Work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,754 posts, read 3,388,914 times
Reputation: 2820
Are you in any of the following states? B/c these are the leading states for minimum wage jobs.

1 Mississippi
2 Texas
3 Alabama
5 Louisiana
6 Oklahoma
7 Georgia
8 Tennesee
11 Arkansas
12 North Carolina
13 Virginia

10 of the top 13 states for minimum wages jobs are RTW. What a win for the working man...
As Unions Weaken So Does the Middle Class

Quote:
The states with the lowest percentage of workers in unions—North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Texas—all have relatively weak middle classes. In each of these states, the share of income going to the middle class (the middle 60 percent of the population by income) is below the national average, according to Census Bureau figures.
So much for the "strong" middle class in RTW states...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,885 posts, read 12,992,350 times
Reputation: 5211
Quote:
Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear View Post
In my experience, if the majority of employees voted to be represented by a union, it was because company execs were being unfair to its workers. So if the company has needlessly taken away so many employee benefits and cut wages to the point where the majority of employees have decided to fight back and get the shop unionized, why should they want their union weakened by a right-to-work law?


the worker makes the choice of whether they want to be in the union or not, plus if the worker is not in the union, they might not have to pay any negotiation fees either.

plus, union dues tend to be lower and not be used for things the union membership does not want them to be used for.

such as supporting candidates they oppose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 10:54 AM
 
41 posts, read 52,793 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear View Post
In my experience, if the majority of employees voted to be represented by a union, it was because company execs were being unfair to its workers. So if the company has needlessly taken away so many employee benefits and cut wages to the point where the majority of employees have decided to fight back and get the shop unionized, why should they want their union weakened by a right-to-work law?
Right to work law is bad for workers - there are no benefits for the average everyday lower to middle class worker in white or blue collar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 10:59 AM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,015,392 times
Reputation: 7282
nm1a"there are no benefits for the average everyday lower to middle class worker in white or blue collar."

Can I have cheese with the baloney above? Most corps insure their employees, pay life insurance premiums the employees family would collect, offer vacation and holidays, etc, and they do it across their entire workforce, w/o regard to rank.

The only reason unions hate RTW is they want to force 100% to pay them, so their execs can maintain their luxurious lifestyles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 01:06 PM
 
4,260 posts, read 2,966,601 times
Reputation: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by nm1a View Post
Right to work law is bad for workers - there are no benefits for the average everyday lower to middle class worker in white or blue collar.

If unions are so good , why would some be lower class folks?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 01:16 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
38,854 posts, read 20,106,497 times
Reputation: 35897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
it helps keep their employer in business. when their employer goes out of business, that hurts workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrugalYankee View Post
Depends on your experience.

In mine, clever union bosses convinced employees that a union would benefit them when in fact the only real beneficiaries were the union bosses.

The union increased their demands to the point where the company packed up and moved south. Nice going - now no one had jobs.

And if a state does not have right-to-work, new companies will be reluctant to move in. Let's face it, it is a HUGE factor in deciding where to locate. If a state is NOT a right-to-work state, many companies won't give it a second glance.

I don't think we have anywhere near the same need for unions as we did decades ago. State laws mandate worker safety, pay, overtime etc. Frankly I think we would be better off without them. Not that I would want to take away a shop right to unionize, I think everyone should have a choice. Not having right-to-work eliminates choice for the worker. Not having it allows union bullying of the type we used to have in the dump where I grew up and where the unions drove almost all the shops out of town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375 View Post
It allows one to take a job without being forced to pay union dues. Dues that can be spent on things said worker may not agree with or want to finance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
Right to work is called freedom to go to work when everybody else is trying to lay around. If you don't like what a company is paying, one always has the right to get a job with someone else or start your own business.

One should never be required to join an organization in order to work for someone. When they have a choice and the company is being unfair to its workers, the choice is usually to go with the union, but too many unions are greedy and corrupt. I am talking about the unions in states where there are no right to work laws. When a person has the right to choose about their own welfare, they usually make the right choice and the corruption will not continue.

We recently went car shopping. I stood in a car lot with many GM cars and wondered what the price of those cars would be if the workers did not demand such high salaries. Then I went to another car lot. I like my GM car, but there is a limit to what I am willing to pay.
I don't have time to read the entire thread but I agree with these posts. Unionization only benefits union bosses and the select few employees who are happily in a union. In many industries, employees pay a lot of money to unions regardless of whether they agree with union actions or not because it is mandated by law (California is an example). If the majority of union members vote to strike, the members that do not agree with this action are required to honor the strike despite the hardship that they face in honoring a strike they disagree with. Personally, I think unions in general are out of touch with reality and make so many unreasonable demands that it has hurt businesses through our severe recession. Also, we ALL pay an arm and leg in taxes thanks to government union demands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2012, 01:21 PM
 
1,652 posts, read 2,878,814 times
Reputation: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear View Post
In my experience, if the majority of employees voted to be represented by a union, it was because company execs were being unfair to its workers. So if the company has needlessly taken away so many employee benefits and cut wages to the point where the majority of employees have decided to fight back and get the shop unionized, why should they want their union weakened by a right-to-work law?
Good question. I never quite understood why that was needed. If the employees don't choose to unionize, then the job won't be unionized... it's really incumbent on the employer to keep employees happy... look at Jet Blue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:20 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top