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.
I've seen many many times loyal employees, who made their employers rich, who gave decades of hard work fired for very minor offenses (excuses) because they could hire someone cheaper. Of course the company took a hit but so what, others where expected to pick up the slack. Others I saw fired because of age=health insurance costs. Too many 40 year olds on the books. Some states you can attempt to fight this kind of treatment but in a right to work state you can forget about it.
And I've seen employers taken to court by employees who really and truly deserved to be fired, costing money and nerves (ultimately the employers won) and finally driving the employer to the point of picking up and moving out of state.
Do you realize how long Kansas has had their right to work law. I remember being in high school when the one was passed here in 1948. I also know that at Boeing, in Wichita, the union always told non-members that they were sucking off the union without paying for it. Then they called for a work stoppage and keyed non-members' cars along with cutting of puncturing their tires in the company parking lot. Now all that cost those people money but for some reason failed to drive many of them into the arms of the union bosses
And so you bring to light probably why some Republicans and conservatives don't want to adopt Right to Work in states that don't have it.
It doesn't. It benefits corporations, just like everything else the Republican's do.
So let me get this straight! Right to Work only benefits the GOP and corporations? OMG how stupid!!!!!!!!!!
A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming
If you are employed in one of the 23 states that has a Right to Work law, you are probably protected by the state's Right to Work law and cannot be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union.
If you are employed in one of the 23 states that has a Right to Work law, you are probably protected by the state's Right to Work law and cannot be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union.
And do tell us, please, what is supposed to be so damned wrong, unjust, unfair, and immoral about being expected to give money to a labor union, if it has successfully worked hard in providing you higher pay and better benefits than found in an equivalent, but NON unionized workplace? Once again, if you deeply resent conditions like those found in a unionized workplace, then don't be dumb and foolish enough to join it.
The thing about unions for nurses is that they mandate that the employer does not give the nurses heavy workloads. In the unionized hospitals the nurses are happier and patients are way safer because we aren't running around trying to take care of 10 patients in the Icu when state mandates are six at the most.
I don't believe for one second employers actually follow federal and state laws. They dont because they can.
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.
So wouldn't it be better if all states were NOT right to work? Seems to me that right to work creates this problem.
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.
Absolutely right. NEVER the workers.
It's the reason why my homestate of Arizona is a complete disaster on the pay and benefits front.
I know plenty of folks who get Right to work and At will employment mixed up.
These two things contradict each other.
If I'm in a right to work state,and that state has At will employment,how will I be able to prove I was wrongly terminated?
The only thing that would prevent getting wrongly terminated in an At will state is a union
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.
