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.
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?
Why would the union be weakened by the right to work? If employees want to be members of a union they are free to do so. I don't see how forcing employees to do something the don't want to do (join a union), is fair.
In addition, they fail to mention that the union has a legally enforceable obligation to provide fair representation to everyone in the bargaining unit, even those who choose not to join. The agency fee you pay is for the benefits the union provides.
I would suggest that any negotiations between the private employee and the company be free of any union involvement at all if the employee chooses not to join the union. I know I wouldn't want to be shackled to their salary and benefits and would prefer to be paid what I'm worth.
It's another silly right wing politically correct term that double-speaks. What "right to work" laws do is enable employers to fire any employee w/o cause.
Why would the union be weakened by the right to work? If employees want to be members of a union they are free to do so. I don't see how forcing employees to do something the don't want to do (join a union), is fair.
For the mere reason union expenses don't come free. If the boss violates provisions in the labor contract, then you have a dispute that may require the union to hire an arbitrator to legally settle. Probably the boss has to hire legal help for himself. Now can you see why most companies so very strongly support Right to Work? And when it comes to renewing the labor contract, I wouldn't be surprised doing that doesn't come free, either.
It's another silly right wing politically correct term that double-speaks. What "right to work" laws do is enable employers to fire any employee w/o cause.
It's actually a "right to fire" law.
English language is something else, isn't it? The book 1984 comes to mind. Things really aren't what they seem, mean, appear.
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?
It doesn't benefit workers. It benefits EMPLOYERS who can't/won't negotiate with unionized workers.
For the mere reason union expenses don't come free. If the boss violates provisions in the labor contract, then you have a dispute that may require the union to hire an arbitrator to legally settle. Probably the boss has to hire legal help for himself. Now can you see why most companies so very strongly support Right to Work? And when it comes to renewing the labor contract, I wouldn't be surprised doing that doesn't come free, either.
Union expenses are of no concern to someone who doesn't want to belong to the union. You seem to be of the opinion that workers are to weak to represent themselves, I have been in the workforce for over 25 years and have done just fine without a union bosses hand in my pocket.
Right to work is called freedom to go to work when everybody else is trying to lay around. If you don't like what a company is paying, one always has the right to get a job with someone else or start your own business.
One should never be required to join an organization in order to work for someone. When they have a choice and the company is being unfair to its workers, the choice is usually to go with the union, but too many unions are greedy and corrupt. I am talking about the unions in states where there are no right to work laws. When a person has the right to choose about their own welfare, they usually make the right choice and the corruption will not continue.
We recently went car shopping. I stood in a car lot with many GM cars and wondered what the price of those cars would be if the workers did not demand such high salaries. Then I went to another car lot. I like my GM car, but there is a limit to what I am willing to pay.
Try opening up a history book and read about how great things were before the unions won rights like the 40 hour work week, equal pay for women and minorities and basic safety.
I mean, you seem to think that these companies will just do right by their employees because it's the right thing to do?
Just look at how our wonderful American Corporations treat people in other countries. No health care, no vacation, starvation wages, and no job security.
I swear to God that so many people on this forum have never been outside the county they were born in. My daughter spent a month in Malaysia when she was in college. She elected to stay with a family who lived on wages paid by Nike.
They lived in a series of cardboard boxes taped together. The father who worked 60 hours a week to provide such luxury was hurt on the job during the month she was there. He missed 2 days of work and required medical care.
The company provided the medical care, but then informed him they would be taking it out of his paychecks. And of course he wasn't paid for the 2 days he missed.
There are abused employees in this country that grin and bear it. Imagine how it will be for them if by law we take away at least the threat of unionization? That alone keeps some of these low life employers honest.
Yep, keep your head in the sand, people are just good from birth and won't abuse people right?
It's another silly right wing politically correct term that double-speaks. What "right to work" laws do is enable employers to fire any employee w/o cause.
It's actually a "right to fire" law.
What union was it that you belong to and are so loyal to?
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?
