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.
Right to work states means non-union employees don't have to pay union dues and can still work for employer. I get that. I just don't agree with it.
I think "right-to-work" SHOULD mean if I apply for a job, whether the hiring manager hires me or not, I should be able to just show up and start working on Monday morning because I have a "RIGHT to work"! With this work I have the legal right to perform, employer should pay me hourly wage for my work that I have the right to do.
That's what I call "right to work". If I go to McDonalds I have the legal right to walk behind the counter and take somebody's order and say "that will be $3.09" and then put the salt on the fries and ask the store manager for my pay owed, regardless of if they hired me or not
Kramer tried this once at an office, and it nearly cost him his relationship with Jerry.
I agree that the intent is to make things harder for unions to monopolize the labor force.
You seem to start with the assumption that unions exist in all workplaces. That is far from the case in Texas. Most workplaces have zero union representation.
In the cases where unions are "forced" to represent non-members of the workforce it would seem to negate the ability of the business to exploit the workers because even the non-union workers are automatically represented. The business cannot differentiate benefits from union and non-union workers, so the union workers get nothing more than the non-union and they both benefit from any union negotiations. So, unless the union is agreeing to worker exploitation it cannot exist.
In the case where no union exists, the business must pay the prevailing rate or the workers will go elsewhere without penalty or restriction.
I'm under no delusions concerning the existence of labor unions, nor is the concept of "monopolizing" a labor force related in any way to the question. The degree to which labor is organized is based upon numerous factors. Most important among them are employment sector and economic market.
The NLRA allows any employee to act in consort in regards to labor organizing. This is as true in a "right to work" state as it is in any other state. Again, the purpose of such legislation is to construct obstacles which make it more difficult for those workers to organize. A secondary benefit to the anti-worker interests is to create an inevitable schism between those workers who pay for their benefits via union dues, and those who opt for a free ride.
The exploitation of workers is a de facto effect of right to work legislation, given that unions are required by such legislation to subsidize those workers who do not contribute--an average arbitration, for example can cost a union upwards of $5000. This, in turn, takes finances away from the primary purpose of a union--organizing new workers. Less money for organizing=less likelihood of increasing union density. This is, of course, the very purpose of all anti-worker legislation.
In every market where there is a mix of unionized and non-unionized employees within the same economic sector and job description, the unionized employees are compensated considerably better than their non-union counterparts. In the Minneapolis-St Paul market, for example, a full-time unionized grocery worker makes about $23.00 an hour. The same job with the same duties at Wal-Mart or Target will net about $15.00 an hour, with fewer benefits and lesser (as in, none) input on working conditions. The best way to describe right to work policy is to amend two words to the term: "right to work for less".
During my working life, I worked in an Open Shop without joining the union.
I worked in an Open Shop as a union member.
I worked in a closed shop, where I was FORCED to join the union to be allowed to work.
I worked in a Right To Work State, where there was no union, and the employees did not want one. Our hourly wage was above the industry average.
Right To Work, IMO, simply means that the Closed Shop where I worked could not exist. Union membership can NOT be used as a prerequisite for employment. Some union contracts call for the payment of an "agency fee" by workers who do not wish to join the union, to reimburse the union for representing them. The unions love that fee, until the Shop Steward has to go to bat against management to help a non-union worker with a grievance! Then, they have to actually EARN the fee, and they often don't like that!
When I was a union member, I paid the union two hours pay per month, every month. In return I got pay raises that were eaten by inflation before the ink was dry on the first check. There were NO other benefits that I was able to use.
Oh, wait, I got to go to the union banquet every year!
hoo-ray.
Right to work states means non-union employees don't have to pay union dues and can still work for employer. I get that. I just don't agree with it.
I think "right-to-work" SHOULD mean if I apply for a job, whether the hiring manager hires me or not, I should be able to just show up and start working on Monday morning because I have a "RIGHT to work"! With this work I have the legal right to perform, employer should pay me hourly wage for my work that I have the right to do.
That's what I call "right to work". If I go to McDonalds I have the legal right to walk behind the counter and take somebody's order and say "that will be $3.09" and then put the salt on the fries and ask the store manager for my pay owed, regardless of if they hired me or not
Non Union employees should be able to work without having to pay a union 'protection money' in the form of union dues. It's probably a good thing you don't make the laws if the example you gave is actually what you think. An employer still makes most of the rules in this country we call the United States, we aren't yet like Russia or China, but it looks like that may be just down the road. As a manager of McDonald's if you walked into my place and walked into the area behind the counter, you'd be thrown out.
Right to work states means non-union employees don't have to pay union dues and can still work for employer. I get that. I just don't agree with it.
I think "right-to-work" SHOULD mean if I apply for a job, whether the hiring manager hires me or not, I should be able to just show up and start working on Monday morning because I have a "RIGHT to work"! With this work I have the legal right to perform, employer should pay me hourly wage for my work that I have the right to do.
That's what I call "right to work". If I go to McDonalds I have the legal right to walk behind the counter and take somebody's order and say "that will be $3.09" and then put the salt on the fries and ask the store manager for my pay owed, regardless of if they hired me or not
Why should a bunch of corrupt criminals be allowed to blackmail me for money to corrupt politics, in order for me to get a job?
Right to work laws are stupid and should be illegal.
If you don't want to join a union, don't join a job with a unionized company. Where does these backwards ass states get off saying you get all the benefits of being in the Union without having to participate.
The NLRA allows any employee to act in consort in regards to labor organizing. This is as true in a "right to work" state as it is in any other state. Again, the purpose of such legislation is to construct obstacles which make it more difficult for those workers to organize. A secondary benefit to the anti-worker interests is to create an inevitable schism between those workers who pay for their benefits via union dues, and those who opt for a free ride.
You see obstruction from business, I see protection from obstruction by union. We will never agree on this issue.
The exploitation of workers is a de facto effect of right to work legislation, given that unions are required by such legislation to subsidize those workers who do not contribute--an average arbitration, for example can cost a union upwards of $5000. This, in turn, takes finances away from the primary purpose of a union--organizing new workers. Less money for organizing=less likelihood of increasing union density. This is, of course, the very purpose of all anti-worker legislation.[/quote]
This illustrates the difference in our perspectives with a 10billion candle spotlight. I believe the primary function of a union should be to protect it's members, NOT FIND NEW ONES. Any organization whose primary purpose is to grow is a corrupt concept. The primary mission of any organization should be to provide a service or product to a consumer group. A Union should provide service to its consumers, the workers, and they will join in droves if that service is of value to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
In every market where there is a mix of unionized and non-unionized employees within the same economic sector and job description, the unionized employees are compensated considerably better than their non-union counterparts. In the Minneapolis-St Paul market, for example, a full-time unionized grocery worker makes about $23.00 an hour. The same job with the same duties at Wal-Mart or Target will net about $15.00 an hour, with fewer benefits and lesser (as in, none) input on working conditions. The best way to describe right to work policy is to amend two words to the term: "right to work for less".
While that may be your experience in your area, it does not seem to be universal based on my conversations with people and the feedback from other posters. Some jobs will have better working conditions or perks due to union influence, and some not so much. Where unions are mandatory, how can you prove that they provided more benefit than ordinary market forces? Without the free option of choice there is no way to determine if the union added any benefit over what would naturally occur. It is just as possible that the union is retarding benefits by isolating market competition for labor.
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.
