What does "right to work state" mean? (Sheridan: wages, live)

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

Obviously, you'd rather imply a lot more than a fact about Wyoming's workplaces when you state "nuff said" about an accident in a union workplace thread.

The only facts known at this point are that:

1) An explosion took place, and

2) 3 workers died at the scene.

Perhaps you didn't read my initial post carefully. There was yet another worker killed in a workplace accident in Converse County this week. Two separate incidents in one week.

Guess I'm a little more informed that you thought, huh?!?!?

[rya700]

I recall reading about a situation last year (in the Casper Star) in which a rig worker was killed on the job while working for a subcontracter hired by one of the major oil companies. His wife was not able to sue for the 'big bucks' of the rig owner even though there was hazardous conditions - the 'subcontractors' don't really have anything to go after. She got a meager payout from workmans comp. Apparently this is the new trend - those big companies, Exxon, Amaco, ect hiring 'subcontractors' to save them from lawsuits? If i remember correctly this case went to federal court.

I was just wondering how this would play out for the kin of the 4 workers that were killed in Converse county since they too were working for a subcontractor. Maybe you know more about this Sunsprit - it sounds like you are a sucontractor?

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by rya700

I recall reading about a situation last year (in the Casper Star) in which a rig worker was killed on the job while working for a subcontracter hired by one of the major oil companies. His wife was not able to sue for the 'big bucks' of the rig owner even though there was hazardous conditions - the 'subcontractors' don't really have anything to go after. She got a meager payout from workmans comp. Apparently this is the new trend - those big companies, Exxon, Amaco, ect hiring 'subcontractors' to save them from lawsuits? If i remember correctly this case went to federal court.

I was just wondering how this would play out for the kin of the 4 workers that were killed in Converse county since they too were working for a subcontractor. Maybe you know more about this Sunsprit - it sounds like you are a sucontractor?

Yes, I am a subcontractor specializing in the installation of durable epoxy coatings in the field.

Absent a full investigation by the authorities, and an assignment of responsibility/fault/causation by knowledgeable people, there isn't grounds for a suit.

That doesn't mean somebody won't try to recover for lost time/wages/wrongful death in a suit, but it's a lot more difficult than if there are professional findings of fault for the party being sued.

Liability between worker and subcontractor varies greatly due to the employing contractors, subs, and their business relationship, as well as the terms of employment for the workers. It's one of the reasons why I have no employees, but staff up as required for many projects with a independent contracted foreman and use Labor Ready workers who are covered by their employment contract with Labor Ready for UI and W/C and other such benefits.

That's why you'll see the thick binders of site safety procedures on the shelves of the main contractor on these sites. By reference in their sub-contractor contracts, these are part of their agreement. With site safety people on-site, training of employees, and safety meetings ... the general contractors do their due diligence to cover their butts, and they expect and contract for their subs to do the same. It ultimately comes down to the individual workers to follow the directives on the jobsite for the main causation of worksite accidents, at least in all of the workplace accidents that I've seen or read about. I've not worked on a jobsite where the company culture was to ignore safety and proper equipment ... it's too expensive to do so.

[stgray02]

right to work doesn't necessarily mean you have to join a union. what it really means is taking away workers rights. An employer can fire you for ANY and I mean ANY reason what so ever! Employers doesn't want unions because the worker will then have someone to protect their rights. In a right to work state, you won't get laid off, you will get fired so that you can't get unemployment. The employer doesn't have to have a reason to fire you. You will always have lower wages and poor working conditions in a right to work state. It's not about unions, It's about LOWER WAGES and NO RIGHTS for WORKERS!

[stgray02]

Right to work means, getting fired for ANY REASON what so ever and getting paid LOWER WAGES! They want you to think it's all about unions. Wake up people, workers right are being taken away! You won't have to worry about being laid off. Getting laid off means you can get unemployment benefits. Instead, you will be fired so that you can't get unemployment benefits. RIGHT TO WORK MEANS - TAKING AWAY A WORKERS RIGHT!!!

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by stgray02

Right to work means, getting fired for ANY REASON what so ever and getting paid LOWER WAGES! They want you to think it's all about unions. Wake up people, workers right are being taken away! You won't have to worry about being laid off. Getting laid off means you can get unemployment benefits. Instead, you will be fired so that you can't get unemployment benefits. RIGHT TO WORK MEANS - TAKING AWAY A WORKERS RIGHT!!!

Obviously, you have a strong misconception about how right to work affects a marketplace. There's a lot of protection in the concept in actual practice for employers and workers rather than the artificial costs/income benefits that are commonly found in union states ... and a strong correlation today between the failing economies of union states vs the stronger economies of right to work states.

Wyoming has one of the strongest state economies in the USA right now, and people are flocking in to take advantage of the low unemployment rate and jobs available in this right to work environment.

Unlike your blanket assertions, Wyoming does have workman's unemployment protection for employees.

As a worker, you have a choice. If a "right to work state" is so objectionable to you, then you can seek employment in a state where you believe the union protection is to your benefit. Or you can seek employment in a closed union shop that is in that "right to work state"; they do exist and have the union contract. In Wyoming, you can find union shops in the trades, railroads, and heavy industry ... so if it's priority to you to be in Wyoming, you can have that employment situation.

[sotoole2012]

once they break unions we'll all be working for minimum wage , 12 hour days , and little or no
benefits

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by sotoole2012

once they break unions we'll all be working for minimum wage , 12 hour days , and little or no
benefits

As opposed to unions that have broken the companies that they worked for and now everybody is out of work? Just as a minor example, look at the steel industry in the USA or the automotive industry. Or the postal worker unions where the primary expense for the mail delivery is labor and the USPS has been running at a huge loss for years, now having to cut back employees in their latest attempt to save money after having recently scaled back or closed smaller post offices throughout the country.

You can't have employees without having an employer.

When was the last time somebody without capital hired you to do a job?

Did you work for free? Or did you expect to get paid for your services and time?

Do you really believe that the folk who put their capital at risk and also work a business should do it for free because they're not the hands-on worker in the place? Why should they spend their time and capital to employ you?

[bawha]

Only if the unions don't break the nation first. The private sector has continued to move jobs out of our borders to remain competitive on the world market and now most states in the union are on the brink of "bankruptcy" because of the benefit packages of their union workers.

[YOU-CANT-EAT-SCENERY]

I now work for the railroad. First union job I have ever had, and I can tell you I am not all that impressed with what the union does for me, but they do manage to take over $120 a month out of my pocket.
My previous job was private sector (newspaper/mechanic) and I made more per hour, had sick time available, and had less out of pocket expense for my medical insurance....only downside is the retirement (SSI), but the union has nothing to do with railroad retirement since it is through the RRRB. So I don't know where the union is helping me any. I can tell you though that if the railroad wanted to treat their employees like crap, railroad workers are a savvy bunch, and they could literally shut down the economy.