I think I saw a post similar to this a few weeks ago, but I was unable to find it.

Here in Oklahoma we are about to vote on right to work and I'm not sure I understand what it is.

I hear arguements from both sides of the fence while at work. People tell me that it's bad because the chamber of commerce and almost all business support it. Therefore, since they support it they obviously have an agenda and that agenda would be to make more money by paying less wages.

On the other side of the fence I hear people say that unions force companies to pay unqualified workers tons of money for a job that any monkey could do.

Anyway, if someone could explain/enlighten I'd be happy. Thanks!

Ian

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 or on a federal enclave may not be protected by a Right to Work law.

right to work.....some say it means right to work for less....I work for a company that is a closed shop, but in a right to work state. In a closed shop, memebership is mandatory.....let me say that again...mandatory, you join or your terminated....makes ya feel real loyal huh, no visit from a union steward or business rep, no speel on how the union works for you and protects you, just a louzy form letter saying join or your fired. Look out for yourself, anyone who says they will either wants to control you, take your money, or exploit you

Why not check the website about this very topic?

[url]http://www.righttowork.org[/url]

If you support the idea of forced union dues being paid and then used to support democrat/socialist candidates, then vote against the right to work law.

If you like the idea of people be able to choose whether to join a union or not, vote for it.

Nevada is a "right to work" state.  Let me tell you, you don't want it.  It offers the worker absolutely no protection whatsoever.  The true meaning of the law is "Right to pay shit and Fire at Will".  How did we get it?  CASINOS.  That ought to tell you all you need to know right there.

Fight it tooth and nail.  Donate to groups that advertise against it.  It's evil.  I'm not union, but have felt the nasty sting of getting canned for political reasons after years of faithful service with no legal recourse whatsoever.  with this law, there is no such thing as "job security".

I understand the abuse and problems with Unions, particularly back East where everything is so corrupt, but this law is NOT the answer.

Ultimately, "right to work" is unconstitutional in that it is contrary to capitalism.  It ties the hands of the employer in deciding who they can and can not employ.

In contrast, Texas is a "right to hire" state which means that the companies can terminate you for no reason whatsoever, and are not required to pay severances, etc.  This is capitalism.

Having been laid-off August 1st "for no good reason" (well, it was because of the economic downturn) illustrated this to me well.  While companies are not REQUIRED to pay a severance, they do so for a number of reasons.  First, they can not hire quality people if they have a reputation for screwing over their employees when the economy is bad.  Second, if the company is publicly traded, they don't want shareholders getting ahold of a bad reputation for employee mistreatment either.

Even though I was let go, I still support free-market economics.

I always thought that "Right to Work" meant Work or get Fired![;)]
Lynn

I'd need to know the details of what Oklahoma means by "right to work", but in general, right-to-work is a GOOD thing which prevents the worst of union abuses.

This is not to say that the unions won't just ignore the law -- they do here in Washington, and the Dems in state politics decline to pursue prosecutions -- but at least these laws give people SOME protection against the unions.

Thanks for all of the info!

Ian

Well, if corporations and businesses are for it, it probably means it will screw the workers.
Here in AZ we have it and it gives almost unlimited power to the employer to do as they want without regard for the workers.(who have no rights)
They can fire you without any reason, and our wages for similar jobs are much less than in non right to work states.
IT SUCKS !!!
[pissed]

Here in Oklahoma, you can be fired for any reason too. But we aren't a right to work state (yet?,) so I don't know how it would affect us..

right to work is WRONG! do yourself a favor dont vote yourself into lower wages!

And you got your other jobs where?
You know, if you don't feel your being treated fairly, you can always find another job or start your own business.
I don't understand this anti-business mentality. It's really totally unrealistic and Communist. Businesses are THE reason you are able to feed your kids. If the businesses didn't make money why would they hire you?
I tell ya, some of you are just not in touch with reality. Unions NEVER fed anyone!

Here is an example of how right to work has HELPED people - Many companies want you to sign a non-compete agreement when you are hired. (This is not common in labor jobs, but is very common in white collar jobs). Basically you are agreeing not to quit and work for another company that COMPETES with the company that hired you, usually for a term of 6 -12 months. Time and time again in Alabama I know people who quit and went to work for a competitor, and were threatened suit by their previous employer but were never sued because the right to work law is just that - the right to work. Many large companies who employ people in Alabama no longer even ask employees to sign an agreement as they have learned that legally is isn't worth the paper it is written on. Many may still say that it's bad, but each state's law is different. Besides if a company wants to screw you over they WILL find a way to get rid of you, or they will just close up shop and move to Mexico, as thousands already have.

As far as I know, many Right to Work states have union organized businesses. A business can not refuse to let a union organize. State laws do not superceed Federal labor laws as far as organization goes.

Notice how quickly some attack businesses as being greedy & wanting to dump employees.  Trained, productive employees are the best thing for a company. Contstant replacement is unprofitable.  

Forced membership in a union in a NON right to work state is just un-natural.  If you are willing to work, you should not be forced to join a union, especially if you don't believe in the crap the leadership puts out & expects members to support.  Support by way of peer pressure intimidation.

Unions love non right to work states so they can force dues out of every employee & squander them..which is illegal according to the Supreme Court's Beck decision.

The US Atty General has not had the balls in the recent past to enforce the Beck decision.
Watch for some serious political fighting in DC if Ashcroft does try. The Unions stand to lose a lot of dues & have to pay back dues collected in violation of Beck. Meaning the political portion of the union dues.

Look now at the meat packers unions in NE.  The Unions now want the Feds to ignnore imigration laws in order to allow illegal aliens to vote for Union organization.   I think any business who hires cheap illegal alien labor should be fined BIGTIME.

Right to work laws mean that your boss can hire and fire whomever he or she wants to without any reason.

I live ina right-to-work state...

Grin & Barrett:  All right to work states have organized labor in them.



This statement is wrong.  Many states allow employees to be fired without cause.

"Right-to-work" means that you can not be forced to join a union in order to work some place.  In right-to-work states, workers are positively free to organize without any recrimination from their employers.  But, workers can not join quit the union anytime they want with no recrimination.

Snohomish, I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there is such a thing as a closed shop in a right-to-work state.  Your state may be different.

Workers can also cross the picket line if they don't agree with the premise of the strike.

Right to work does not allow collective bargaining between employees and employers. As far as Oklahoma being an "at will" state, if an employer fires you without documentation, they've opened themselves up to a lawsuit. Right to work will allow an employer to fire you whenever for whatever without documenting any patterns of behavior, etc. and pretty well takes away your recourse for reinstatement. As far as crossing the picket line, if you work in an open shop and there's a strike you can cross, no problem, but there's a catch. If you're a member of the union and you crossed, your ass is getting sued when the strike's settled. If you're not a union member, do as you like, but don't expect your union brothers to do a helluva lot for you if you ever get in a bind.

Unions!
No Thank You!
If the Unions are against it, then I'm all for it.
You'll never go wrong if you adopt the Anti-Union position.

There's more to it than that. Right to work makes it much, much easier to fire your ass for any reason with no documentation at all. There won't be any suing to get your job back or arbitration. That's for the non-union places.

If you worked in a union shop and everyone was theoretically on board and for the union, right to work would effectively bust the union.

If you're blue collar, right to work is a bad deal for everyone, union or not.

Ohhhh, thank you most gracious and benevolent business owner for allowing me to slave for you.
Please, feel free to pay me as little as possible so you can inrease your profits.
COME ON Garmentless..... If businesses just cared a little instead of screwing their employees every chance they get, niether unions or right to work laws would be necessary.
It's not about money, it's about rights. If an employer can fire you for any reason, or no reason, you don't have a problem with that ??
[pissed]

And BTW, just why do you think businesses are in favor of this anyway ????? Hmmmmmmmm
[img]www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/shootout.gif[/img]

Nothing could be further from the truth. WHERE did you get this from? I live in right to work state and collective bargaining is all around, over & over again. Not trying to flame, but this just aint so.

Don't forget to bring a towel! When you're dealing with people who want to vote away anything considered a "right" you're bound to have your mouth and wallered bunghole filled with your own blood and communist semen, that's why towelie says, Don't forget to bring a towel.

I think you answered that one. Contracts aren't binding, neither is collective bargaining. That may be okay for textile workers in Alabama or chicken pluckers in Arkansas, but by and large it's a bad deal for blue collar employees.

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson:

"Ahhhhh, Teamsters...so lazy and surly."

Why is it that every employer is seen as wanting to get rid of their employees? Without them products and services are not created or supplied.  Seems to be the entire world is in the "cheapest" mentality.   If you want cheap, pay cheap. If you want quality, then do it right & be fair.  Maybe that's why my company has been in business 163 years.


And since when is a job a right?

You can get fired ? IF you do your job right you have nothing to worry about.Right now i can't work at a union sight without a card ,If i had a card and worked at a non union sight i would loose my card.My vote is for the right to work.Thanks Jim that was big of you .

I don't know what you do for a living, but from the looks of your post, my guess is meth lab. It would help if you could spell union. Next bus to Arkansas and Tyson's chicken leaves in the morning. Be on it.

Companies don't necessarily want to fire anyone, they just want employees who'll work for as little as possible. If that means getting rid of you, then so be it. Too many keep trying to distort this into a union versus non-union argument. Right to work is just a means to strip blue collar workers of [b][i]ALL[/i][/b] union persuasions of their current protection under the law.

(uion ) I'm a school teacher and I'm teaching y'alls kyds.

I can't believe this is true.  I know of absolutely no right-to-work state that doesn't have collective barganing.  I can't imagine it even being constitutional.  Are you,trying to tell us that's what they're trying to pass in OK?

I'll say it again: RTW just means that there is no compulsory union membership and no closed shops.  It does not prohibit collective bargaining.  

I don't know about all RTW states, but I believe the laws allowing employers to fire without cause are separate laws.

Then that explains in great detail how our state's ACT and SAT scores have slipped.



Uh, no, it means no binding contracts on either part.

I don't know. There are several big non-union shops in my area as well as several big union shops. As far as I know, the non-union shops cannot simply fire you without reason for fear of lawsuit or action by the state labor board. In most cases you have to give them some help (insubornation, excessive  absences, constant screwing around, ect.) This may be due to Ohio labor laws that do not exsist on other states, I honestly do not know, but I will try to find out. I do know of a couple of guys one company (non-union) was trying to get rid of, mostly because the bosses did not like some of the noise they were making about safety. They only managed to get rid of one of them and only then because he was constantly calling off without a doctor's excuse. Had he documented things correctly, their hands would have been tied.

Check into your state labor laws. If they afford you protection from employer abuses, I can see nothing bad about the law. I would do my research though.

I just noticed this -- HEY SNOHOMISH, assuming that your location information ("WA, US") is correct (and I'd guess it is, since Snohomish County is the one north of King County and Seattle):

[red]Washington state is [b]not[/b] a "right-to-work" state.[/red]

Since you don't even know whether we have it here, much less what it means, I will assume that you're simply licking the hands of your union masters by decrying it.

FWIW, there've been abortive attempts to pass it here, but the unions are too strong (especially the WEA, the state teachers' union, which has engaged in illegal political activities to destroy various education initiatives and to support Democratic gun-grabbing politicians like Locke and Gregoire.

This is absolute bull.  It has nothing to do with telling an employer who he may or may not hire, it simply means that you have the right to join or not to join a union.  Unions do more to tie the hands of the employer relating to whom they can and can't employ.

More bull.  You can have unions and collective bargaining in a right to work state,  it just means you don't have to join a union at your workplace if you don't want to.



This is also completely false.  It has nothing AT ALL to do with this.  It simply means you don't have to join a union and takes away no recourse.

Uh, you need to get with the program here, Homer. Right to work doesn't bind anyone to a contract. Goes a helluva lot further than not requiring union membership. Allows companies/employers to break any contract at will; hence "right" to work. Gives them a "right" to work anyone of their choosing. Affects ALL blue collar employees, whether you are a union member or not. You ought to read a little deeper. The only ones advocating this are white collar workers, company execs/owners, and armchair pundits who believe that they can solve the world's problems from sitting in front of a computer. Ian's own employee group, the F.O.P., is against it.

Front page of the sorry Oklahoma City rag had an article about states with the highest rates of poverty (the paper is for RTW). Including Arkansas, Alabama, and Texas. Looks like right to work has really helped those people. I suppose that's bull, too. Huh, [b]LARRYG[/b]?

Uh, get with the program.  Right to work means nothing more than you don't have to join a union to work at a place that has a union.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE.  The states with the poverty rates that you mention has nothing to do with RTW.  There are plenty of states with RTW that are not among the highest in poverty.  The two are not related.  If you like giving your money to unions that support the socialist ways of the Demoflaps and want to take away your guns, that's fine, but not I.  The poverty level is seperate, unless you mean that unions artificially prop up salaries for those who don't deserve it.  Oh, wait, that's exactly what they do.

And, yes, everything you mentioned is BULL, Homey.

I REPEAT, RIGHT TO WORK SIMPLY MEANS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO JOIN A UNION.  ALL THE REST IS A SMOKE SCREEN AND PROPAGANDA BY THOSE WHO DON'T WANT RIGHT TO WORK, AND IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS SUBJECT.

Jim
That is just the propaganda of the 5000 or so union PR personnel that have come to OK to stop right to work.  The only thing that OK right to work says is that you cannot be forced to join a union in order to work.  It doesn't ban unions, invalidate contracts or strip workers of any rights, it does lower the powers of the unions because they cannot force people to join, which may result in less power in bargaining.

Repeat until you're blue in the face, that doesn't change anything. Quit distorting this into a union versus non-union issue. Right to work prevents any contracts between employees and employers from being binding. That's something that I'll repeat. You can pretty well bet that any company will use that to their advantage.

How has right to work improved your quality of life, [b]LARRYG[/b]? Are you a blue collar employee? Have you surveyed the wages and payscales for your profession in non-RTW states? I have in RTW states, and they're lower. I'll repeat that, too. [b][i]LOWER.[/i][/b]

As far as all of the belly aching about the union BS and how some nitwits can't hack it in a union shop, I'll say this: doesn't everyone have the right to seek other employment? If you're unhappy in your present job, do you or do you not have the right to quit and work somewhere more suitable to your tastes? I know, you girls would rather harp on and on and on and on via the internet. I'd just love to continue this stimulating discussion, but those who're shouting the loudest in support of RTW have only proven themselves intellectually bankrupt and not worthy of a single minute of my precious time. Continue the mental masturbation without me.

Jim
you have a tendency to give false information, in this case that right to work invalidates contracts.  It doesn't unless the contract states that you have to be in a union to work for a business.  RTW actual only says that there cannot be union shops, period.  

And you would feed your children how else?


I don't know about you, but businesses NEED me! I actually make a contribution to the profitability of any business that hires me. I can see how they would want to pay you as little as possible. With your attitude, I doubt you contribute enough to make them want you. Although I have been unemployed for awhile. When the offer comes in I will do one of 3 things:
1) Accept it
2) reject and counteroffer
3) reject it and find something else to do.
You have the same freedom.

If you're not man enough to bargain for yourself, I really don't think anyone can genuinely help you.


The last place I worked kept paying me for almost a year even though I wasn't able to bring in anything. But they knew that when/if business turned around that I would make them money. When they did lay me off, they gave me a small severance. Did they have to do any of that? NO!!! Listen, not every place I worked was that good, but I kept looking, and I kept improving myself to where I COULD work for such a good place.
Even the lesser places I've worked offered vacation and (sometimes poor)insurance benefits. Did any of them have to do that? NO!! But if they want attract and keep employees, they do these things. Ever work at a place that had pay/benefit cuts? What happened? In my experience, huge numbers of people quit. That hurt business.
You are correct, Unions are unnecessary and therefore, right to work laws. The only valid function left is the Hiring Hall. This could easily be replaced by Personnel firms. Most industries these days use personnel firms anyway, so the hiring halls could be and should be replaced.

There is always a reason. Why would they be so capricious? You think people get out of bed and say "I'm going to fire somebody today just to screw with them. Even though it will hurt production and sales." If you believe that, seek psychiatric help!
Continued..

Because they know that Unions make demands that are totally unrealistic given the market. How would you like to have hired lots of people in a good economy and then been disallowed from laying off in a bad economy? So, instead of laying off a % of the people, the company went bankrupt and everybody lost their job? Is that what you really want?
If I hadn't been laid off, my salary would have drug down the whole company. So, I'm hurting now. You think it would have been better if the company I worked for went bankrupt and everybody lost their job? That's what you are saying.

In my experience, Unionism, Communism and the Democratic Party all encourage commission of the following [b]Seven Deadly Sins[/b]:
[b]Envy[/b] - jealousy of the possessions of others, both physical & spiritual.
[b]Anger[/b] - Because of the envy, anger is encouraged by these groups in dealing with your lack of attributes. Ever see a Union picket? What happens when someone crosses it? Is that really how YOU are?
[b]Sloth[/b] - These groups encourage wanting something for nothing. Those who are not productive decry that they are not rewarded. Think of "work rules" etc.
[b]Covetousness[/b] - They all promise riches for everyone, despite whatever effort a person has made. Reality and practice of these Schools is that everyone just becomes poor.

In honor of today's holiday. [;)]