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.
What does Right to Work mean? If anybody votes for the first option, please back your vote up with numbers and facts. Because as far as I know, there are none to back up option 1.
Right to work means that if you are joining a Union company, then you have a right to work without joining the union.
My company is in a merger right now, with a union company. Since I live in a right to work state, I don't have to join the union, I don't have to pay dues, and I would get union representation even if we vote for the union in our market.
The Union can't mandate that everyone join the union in order to work in "their" shop.
What does Right to Work mean? If anybody votes for the first option, please back your vote up with numbers and facts. Because as far as I know, there are none to back up option 1.
The facts are, right to work states have lower unemployment and lower cost of living than states that force workers to belong to unions.
The facts are, right to work states have lower unemployment and lower cost of living than states that force workers to belong to unions.
The "STATE" doesn't force workers to belong to a union ANYWHERE, what the "STATE" does in a "Right to Work" state is prohibit employees who freely combine for the purposes of collectively bargaining the right to negotiate a contract with an employer which would require that any worker who BENEFITS from the collective bargaining contract must pay for those benefits.
Examples:
Federal law requires that a union must fairly represent all workers covered under the contract. In a right to work state, even though non-union employees must still be represented by the union, non-union employees do not contribute to the legal cost incurred by the union for their representation.
Non-union workers in right to work states receive the same pay and benefits as union members despite the fact that non-union workers contributed nothing to the costs involved in negotiating a union contract.
In short non-union workers in right to work states are the very antithesis of so called conservative values, they are freeloaders who want a handout - union supplied legal services, higher wages and benefits, safer working conditions, while contributing nothing for them.
The Right-to-Work Movement resulted in many States, but unfortunately not all States, passing laws that banned closed union shops.
That allowed workers to obtain jobs without the threat of unions or being harassed by unions and union members.
That also allowed workers who quite intelligently refused to join unions to keep their wages instead of taking wage cuts when a union took over, and it allows them to be hired at above union rates, and it allows them to get larger pay raises than union members.
For example, when I was hired into an open-union shop in a Right-to-Work State, I was hired at a wage that was higher than union members because of my education, training and experience, and I received raises based on performance, and so my raises were higher than union members.
However, now unions have cleverly co-opted the phrase "Right-to-Work" and now it means "right to unionize using any means possible including coercion, blackmail, extortion, threats etc etc etc."
You know when you agree or disagree with a law or policy, it isn't necessary to make up things out of whole-cloth or lie about it.
"Right to Work" is a phrase that was coined in the 1970s as part of a concerted campaign to push for states to enact laws in accordance with Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act passed by a Republican Congress in 1947 over the veto of Democratic President Harry Truman in order to role back union protections enacted by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Quote:
That allowed workers to obtain jobs without the threat of unions or being harassed by unions and union members.
Ah, no! Acts of intimidation by unions or employers was already prohibited under the NLR (1935).
Quote:
That also allowed workers who quite intelligently refused to join unions to keep their wages instead of taking wage cuts when a union took over, and it allows them to be hired at above union rates, and it allows them to get larger pay raises than union members.
This is a perfect example of making things up out of whole cloth and just plain lies. Since one of the key issues in any union organizing drive is to raise wages and benefits, to argue that following unionization workers experience a cut in pay is ridiculous. Further, even under so called "right to work provisions" the union contract sets wages for all employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement. For a non-union worker to receive benefits greater than those covered under the contract would under no uncertain terms be construed as a unfair labor practice.
Quote:
For example, when I was hired into an open-union shop in a Right-to-Work State, I was hired at a wage that was higher than union members because of my education, training and experience, and I received raises based on performance, and so my raises were higher than union members.
I seriously doubt that your statement is factual or that you are making such claims with any knowledge of the provisions of the existing contract. Just because you are an employee of a unionized company doesn't in fact place you into the bargaining unit which my only cover specific job classifications. For example, at many unionized grocery stores, butchers may be represented by one union while clerks may be covered by another. Two different contracts two different wage and benefit schedules, or in your case, one classification of employees would be covered under a bargaining agreement while others would not. Again, unionized workers, be they members are not, are governed by the same contract provisions that is the law be the state "right to work" or not.
Quote:
However, now unions have cleverly co-opted the phrase "Right-to-Work" and now it means "right to unionize using any means possible including coercion, blackmail, extortion, threats etc etc etc."
Another WTF comment! Coercion, blackmail and extortion are criminal offense covered by both state and federal criminal statutes, being right to work or otherwise doesn't change that. Threats and intimidation are unfair labor practices (all though that hasn't sunk into the skull of many an employer) and are especially prohibited by the NLR. What passes as intimidation and coercion under the NLR are less than would ever be covered by a criminal statute.
Another WTF comment! Coercion, blackmail and extortion are criminal offense covered by both state and federal criminal statutes, being right to work or otherwise doesn't change that. Threats and intimidation are unfair labor practices (all though that hasn't sunk into the skull of many an employer) and are especially prohibited by the NLR. What passes as intimidation and coercion under the NLR are less than would ever be covered by a criminal statute.
I noticed that you state "threats and intimidation are unfair labor practices" with regards to the employer. What about when the union does it ?
"Pay us more or we strike" ..isn't that threat and intimidation against the employer by the union ?
You know when you agree or disagree with a law or policy, it isn't necessary to make up things out of whole-cloth or lie about it.
"Right to Work" is a phrase that was coined in the 1970s as part of a concerted campaign to push for states to enact laws in accordance with Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act passed by a Republican Congress in 1947 over the veto of Democratic President Harry Truman in order to role back union protections enacted by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Ah, no! Acts of intimidation by unions or employers was already prohibited under the NLR (1935).
This is a perfect example of making things up out of whole cloth and just plain lies. Since one of the key issues in any union organizing drive is to raise wages and benefits, to argue that following unionization workers experience a cut in pay is ridiculous. Further, even under so called "right to work provisions" the union contract sets wages for all employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement. For a non-union worker to receive benefits greater than those covered under the contract would under no uncertain terms be construed as a unfair labor practice.
I seriously doubt that your statement is factual or that you are making such claims with any knowledge of the provisions of the existing contract. Just because you are an employee of a unionized company doesn't in fact place you into the bargaining unit which my only cover specific job classifications. For example, at many unionized grocery stores, butchers may be represented by one union while clerks may be covered by another. Two different contracts two different wage and benefit schedules, or in your case, one classification of employees would be covered under a bargaining agreement while others would not. Again, unionized workers, be they members are not, are governed by the same contract provisions that is the law be the state "right to work" or not.
Another WTF comment! Coercion, blackmail and extortion are criminal offense covered by both state and federal criminal statutes, being right to work or otherwise doesn't change that. Threats and intimidation are unfair labor practices (all though that hasn't sunk into the skull of many an employer) and are especially prohibited by the NLR. What passes as intimidation and coercion under the NLR are less than would ever be covered by a criminal statute.
The Taft-Hartley Act, which created the legal basis for the so-called "right to work" states, had the outcome desired by its corporate-friendly congressional sponsors. It weakened the US labor movement.
The decline of union membership in the US over the past 40 years (from 30% to 13%) correlates to a flattening-out, and even a slight decline, in the wages and benefits of the middle class.
Meanwhile, the relative compensation of the top 1% of wage earners (i.e., management) has skyrocketed. This is not a coincidence.
Check out this article, and graph, in today's WaPo.
In short non-union workers in right to work states are the very antithesis of so called conservative values, they are freeloaders who want a handout - union supplied legal services, higher wages and benefits, safer working conditions, while contributing nothing for them.
So. in short, non-union workers are the very embodiment of liberalism.
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.
