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'm in favor for pro-choice in employment. A person should not be forced to join a union or excluded from a job because he is not related to a union member inorder to get hired. It would be better to disolve all unions and let everyone use their own merits to gain and keep employment.
I'm in favor for pro-choice in employment. A person should not be forced to join a union or excluded from a job because he is not related to a union member inorder to get hired. It would be better to disolve all unions and let everyone use their own merits to gain and keep employment.
Would you be OK with a person working in a union shop without joining or paying dues to the union if that meant he got paid less and had worse benefits than the other workers around him?
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?
Right to work laws are much more fair to everyone involved than allowing a union to control your livelihood. Back in the twenties it was common to pay protection money to the mafia, but no worker liked being forced to pay. Today the mafia has been replaced by unions who still want to be paid protection money and if you don't, you are in trouble. I feel a worker should be allowed to work without having the finance a union if he so wishes, and if he wants to join a union, that should also be his wish. I don't think your experience is the same as the experience other people have had. Not all execs are unfair to workers, and not all workers are fair to execs. The union is a good thing for the person who is lazy and wants top dollar for minimum work, but it is not needed by a good worker who always comes to work on time and does a good job. Would it be better for everyone to join the union and have the execs close up shop and move the whole operation to Mexico? That is what has happened in the past with tough unions. Unions have ruined the automotive business.
The short answer to your question "Right to work Laws Benefit Workers" because it gives the workers a choice of what they want. Choices aren't taken away by the union. If you are a union worker, you end up supporting the democratic platform whether you want to or not, you have not choice in the matter.
Last edited by Nite Ryder; 02-19-2012 at 03:53 PM..
Would you be OK with a person working in a union shop without joining or paying dues to the union if that meant he got paid less and had worse benefits than the other workers around him?
Bull squat! Doesn't happen that way...We ditched the IBEW and make more money with better bennies!!!
my54ford, At each of my last 2 employers, who each have dozens of facilities employing a 5 figure US headcount, the benefits offered in the RTW , non union shops were superior to those offered in closed shop, union facilities. The profits were better in the former, thanks to a lack of 1925ish work rules, so it was easy to give the employees a better package where they were more productive. A win-win. I'm sure the union staff was grateful no facility saw the benefits at other facilities, or they would be out of jobs.
Would you be OK with a person working in a union shop without joining or paying dues to the union if that meant he got paid less and had worse benefits than the other workers around him?
I'm in favor for pro-choice in employment. A person should not be forced to join a union or excluded from a job because he is not related to a union member inorder to get hired. It would be better to disolve all unions and let everyone use their own merits to gain and keep employment.
No one is forced to become a member of a labor union. If you don't want anything to do with a labor union, then don't be so dumb as to try to join a unionized workplace.
totsuka, Well stated. I agree 100%. I am delighted to see the quantity of RTW states growing.10 states in process of changing or attempting to change, to the Freedom RTW brings.
Union membership , private sector, is at a several decade low. Gov't union membership exceeds it! They brought about their own demise, and its no coincidence not a single transplant auto plant is in a closed shop state.
I feel a worker should be allowed to work without having the finance a union if he so wishes, and if he wants to join a union, that should also be his wish. .
Then why is it so right that workers in a unionized workplace, who don't pay a dime into a union, get to have full representation by the union after such workers file grievances against the company? How is this so right and so fair to the union? People need to wake up and see that the main point to passing right to work is so the company boss can do as he pleases in running roughshod over the union contract once enough workers can be persuaded to drop union membership so the union won't have enough money to legally challenge the boss's moves.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 02-19-2012 at 08:17 PM..
totsuka, Well stated. I agree 100%. I am delighted to see the quantity of RTW states growing.10 states in process of changing or attempting to change, to the Freedom RTW brings.
Union membership , private sector, is at a several decade low. Gov't union membership exceeds it! They brought about their own demise, and its no coincidence not a single transplant auto plant is in a closed shop state.
Because NOT having Right to Work has been effective in keeping unions out, a lot of Republicans are going to think twice about bringing right to work to states that don't have it. They are sure thinking twice about it in Michigan where Republicans rule. The Republican governor is not interested in promoting Right to Work for Michigan, even though Michigan is the most economically depressed state in the union.
Speaking of auto plants I once again ask, If Right to Work works, then why did the GM plant close in Oklahoma, a Right to Work state? It did so during Bush's recession.
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.
How does a right-to-work law benefit workers?
