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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
It doesn't. It benefits corporations, just like everything else the Republican's do.
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.
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 is 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.
How much would those cars be if senior management wasn't making millions, gathering in stock options which they'll sell off at retirement, or toting around their "golden parachutes?"
Right to work, for less. It only benefits the fat cats by slashing wages and benefits, lower safety standards, and little to no say to the worker to fight back against the company if needed
Right to work, for less. It only benefits the fat cats by slashing wages and benefits, lower safety standards, and little to no say to the worker to fight back against the company if needed
You can't substantiate a single word of this, especially the "lower safety standards" claim.
Right to work for less laws are put in place exclusively to benefit the bosses and screw the workers. They are intended to weaken unions and make it impossible for them to work on behalf of workers and improve their wages, hours, and working conditions.
They do help someone, but it is never the workers.
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.
