[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Right-to-Work (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 1/23/2012 1:58:56 PM EDT
|
How do you feel about the Right-to-Work legislature? The battle is going on in Indiana, and I'm still trying to understand the whole thing, since I'm not very familiar with unions, etc. |
|
Kansas is a right to work state. I spent 15 years working in a Union shop, the first four years I was a union member. I then said fuck it and dropped out for the remaining years I worked. Right to work is good. The unions served a purposes years back, but they now have grown into nothing more than a money making political machine. |
|
Quoted: Employment is a privilege, not a right. True...but Right to work legislation has nothing to do with that. What 'Right to work' means is that you cannot be discriminated against for not joining a union, nor can you be required to join a union. It's a little known fact, but anyone, union member or not, can go and sign the referral list (available for work list) in a right to work state, and apply for the same jobs, and work under the same rules/wages/benefits and not be required to join a union. CVN
|
|
I'm against them on general principle, but for them on specific principle: as long as it's illegal to NOT negotiate with a union, then anything that gets the playing field closer to "even" is fine by me.
The general principle is that this violates the freedom of people to enter into whatever contract they choose. If an employer enters into a contract with a union to hire only union personnel, then that's fine by me. If an employer wants to only hire men who sign contracts to never join a union, that's fine by me, too. But the way it is now, the latter is illegal, and the NLRB and the laws which give it power constitute unacceptable infringements on the liberty of business owners and workers alike, so I'm fine with right to work taking a little bit of the edge off of the nationally-empowered union's fangs. In a perfect world, we'd have none of the stupid laws, and men could make whatever contracts with men that they found mutually acceptable. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. +1. I believe though that if you can't show cause then you must pay unemployement. At our company our HR department is telling managers to document, document, document. you must understand the JOB does not belong to YOU. it belongs to the company,to do what they wish. |
|
Quoted:
If you're not a fan of unions you should be a fan of right-to-work law. Yep. I was working as a seasonal temp for UPS when Oklahoma was working on passing their Right to work law. Every night, the parking lot would have 10-15 folks passing out flyers talking about how bad is was, and peopled needed to vote no. They never could explain why if the Union was such a good thing, why they had to force people to join. Thankfully, even with all the money the Unions spent, Right to work was approved by the voters. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you're not a fan of unions you should be a fan of right-to-work law. Yep. I was working as a seasonal temp for UPS when Oklahoma was working on passing their Right to work law. Every night, the parking lot would have 10-15 folks passing out flyers talking about how bad is was, and peopled needed to vote no. They never could explain why if the Union was such a good thing, why they had to force people to join. Thankfully, even with all the money the Unions spent, Right to work was approved by the voters. So why was the Union bad then? |
|
Quoted:
How do you feel about the Right-to-Work legislature? The battle is going on in Indiana, and I'm still trying to understand the whole thing, since I'm not very familiar with unions, etc. The ultimate function of all unions is to prevent employment of any individual that is non-unionized. This is not the outspoken goal of unions, but ultimately it is the ends to the means. Very simple. Right to work is GTG. BTW, liberals hate right to work states. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're not a fan of unions you should be a fan of right-to-work law. Yep. I was working as a seasonal temp for UPS when Oklahoma was working on passing their Right to work law. Every night, the parking lot would have 10-15 folks passing out flyers talking about how bad is was, and peopled needed to vote no. They never could explain why if the Union was such a good thing, why they had to force people to join. Thankfully, even with all the money the Unions spent, Right to work was approved by the voters. So why was the Union bad then? Help me understand your question: As far as you know, what does a union do? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. That is a problem? Overpriced labor causes unemployment. |
|
Quoted:
Kansas is a right to work state. I spent 15 years working in a Union shop, the first four years I was a union member. I then said fuck it and dropped out for the remaining years I worked. Right to work is good. The unions served a purposes years back, but they now have grown into nothing more than a money making political machine. This. Minimum wage, child labor laws, maximum hours/overtime rules, etc. all protect workers today. Unions drive up costs, forcing US companies to move production to free states or offshore to remain competitive in a global economy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. If you are around long enough to get increased wages, and a new guy can do just as good as a job as you for less money, you are probably worth less than you are getting paid. 
|
|
Quoted:
I'm against them on general principle, but for them on specific principle: as long as it's illegal to NOT negotiate with a union, then anything that gets the playing field closer to "even" is fine by me. The general principle is that this violates the freedom of people to enter into whatever contract they choose. If an employer enters into a contract with a union to hire only union personnel, then that's fine by me. If an employer wants to only hire men who sign contracts to never join a union, that's fine by me, too. But the way it is now, the latter is illegal, and the NLRB and the laws which give it power constitute unacceptable infringements on the liberty of business owners and workers alike, so I'm fine with right to work taking a little bit of the edge off of the nationally-empowered union's fangs. In a perfect world, we'd have none of the stupid laws, and men could make whatever contracts with men that they found mutually acceptable. Here you make the assumption that there is no compulsion placed on the employer to enter the contract. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. If you are around long enough to get increased wages, and a new guy can do just as good as a job as you for less money, you are probably worth less than you are getting paid. Probably, or obviously? |
|
I talk to so many people who think that "Right to work" is pro union. I think people have to understand that what its conveying is the right to work even if you have to walk past a picket line. Or the right to work at any wage you feel is fair and without having to pay union dues or work within the unions regulations.
It still needs to be changed. :) |
|
Quoted:
I think there's a lot of people in GD that don't know WTF Right to Work legislation entails..and I also think there's a lot of people in GD that can't spell GD...but what the hell. CVN I think you nailed that. That said...I would agree that there is no "right to work"....we work at the discretion of those who employ us. By that same rationale, I am disgusted by laws that allow people to organize in such a manner that results in a business owner having to employ people in compliance with rules that the hired help dictate. While I support the legislation, I really hate the name they gave it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. If you are around long enough to get increased wages, and a new guy can do just as good as a job as you for less money, you are probably worth less than you are getting paid. Quoted: The right to work laws give you the right to work for nothing.  'zackly |
|
Quoted: The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. No it doesn't Right to work means being able to have a job without having to pay a union in order to have it. Employement at will means you can be shit canned at any time for any reason. It also means you can walk from the job at any time for any reason. |
|
Quoted:
I'm against them on general principle, but for them on specific principle: as long as it's illegal to NOT negotiate with a union, then anything that gets the playing field closer to "even" is fine by me. The general principle is that this violates the freedom of people to enter into whatever contract they choose. If an employer enters into a contract with a union to hire only union personnel, then that's fine by me. If an employer wants to only hire men who sign contracts to never join a union, that's fine by me, too. But the way it is now, the latter is illegal, and the NLRB and the laws which give it power constitute unacceptable infringements on the liberty of business owners and workers alike, so I'm fine with right to work taking a little bit of the edge off of the nationally-empowered union's fangs. In a perfect world, we'd have none of the stupid laws, and men could make whatever contracts with men that they found mutually acceptable. In a right to work state, the employer can still refuse to hire a non-union employee; but he has the right to decide, not forced by the union. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. You can always offer to take a pay cut and spare him the training costs. |
|
I'm anti-union in the extreme. My hatred of unions is nuclear powered. They've destroyed much of our national industrial competitiveness on the world stage, and are exclusively self-serving, greedy organizations that always push to get paid MORE money to do LESS work. |
|
Quoted:
Here you make the assumption that there is no compulsion placed on the employer to enter the contract. As long as the coercion is only "we refuse to work for you and so will our friends as long as you don't sign this contract" then I'm cool with it. I'm also cool with collusion, cartels, and price-fixing, because all of these things present significant incentives to the competition (and to the colluders) and rarely last. Quoted:
In a right to work state, the employer can still refuse to hire a non-union employee; but he has the right to decide, not forced by the union. I know. But the union and the employer are barred by the right to work law from signing a contract that might be perfectly amenable to both parties, and that's (to me) a bad thing. Unions, employers, and non-union workers should be free to enter into whatever contracts they please, without the government intervening on any side. If employers and unions want to get together and make union shops, fine. If employers and workers want open shops, fine. If the employer wants to ban unionizing and the workers are amenable to that, cool. If they want a mix, then that's cool, too. They should be free to pick among them, rather than any choices being either outlawed or compulsory |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. You can always offer to take a pay cut and spare him the training costs. Nope, you're fired. Never cared much for them Ohio folk. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. This I am currently fighting with the EEOC to sue a company that fired me for filing a restraining order against one of their employees. Fuck right to work states. And fuck unions. You can't have it both ways. BTW, Right to Work and Employement at Will are two separate concepts. |
|
Quoted: I'm anti-union in the extreme. My hatred of unions is nuclear powered. They've destroyed much of our national industrial competitiveness on the world stage, and are exclusively self-serving, greedy organizations that always push to get paid MORE money to do LESS work. All that hate is gonna burn you up kid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. You can always offer to take a pay cut and spare him the training costs. Nope, you're fired. Never cared much for them Ohio folk. So your "illustration" fails, since there was obviously another reason. Why should he have to keep me if he doesn't want to? Doesn't cause me to lack the incentive to please my employer? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you're not a fan of unions you should be a fan of right-to-work law. Yep. I was working as a seasonal temp for UPS when Oklahoma was working on passing their Right to work law. Every night, the parking lot would have 10-15 folks passing out flyers talking about how bad is was, and peopled needed to vote no. They never could explain why if the Union was such a good thing, why they had to force people to join. Thankfully, even with all the money the Unions spent, Right to work was approved by the voters. So why was the Union bad then? Help me understand your question: As far as you know, what does a union do? Not saying I'm pro or against, but so far I hear that the Union is there to protect an employee from bad people or a bad employer that treats you poorly or pays you unfairly, etc. For instance, if a manager is an a-hole to you, and you have no choice but to walk out on them, when brought up to the company or in court, you can get your job back and so on. They are there to back you up, kind of like a lawyer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. +1. I believe though that if you can't show cause then you must pay unemployement. At our company our HR department is telling managers to document, document, document. Wrong. "At will" allows an employer to terminate someone without necessary cause. Right-to-work deals strictly with not forcing union membership as a condition of employment . |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The right to work also means they can fire you without any reason. You say that like it's a bad thing. You make too much money here, I can hire a new guy for your starting wage. You're fired. You can always offer to take a pay cut and spare him the training costs. Nope, you're fired. Never cared much for them Ohio folk. So your "illustration" fails, since there was obviously another reason. Why should he have to keep me if he doesn't want to? Doesn't cause me to lack the incentive to please my employer? I just have the opinion you should need a valid reason to terminate someone, not just because 'you don't like them'. Taking a pay cut because of profit loss is another matter, but to fire someone because of race, they drive a Ford, chew loudly, they are from New York City, hate the Patriots,...... |