• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

"Right to work" law.

Awesome! :D

The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 made Closed Shops, that is, shops that require union membership, illegal. Freedom of Association already ensures that people do not need to belong to an organization that they do not want to.

What does Right to Work do for worker choice that the Taft-Hartley act does not?
 
I'm not sure if it's a good thing, or a bad thing, or some of both. I grew up in MN, a union state, and worked there until I was 40. When I moved to Florida, (a tight to work state) with ten years of experience in my field, I took a 20% pay cut, and it took me five years to catch up to the wage I was making when I left MN.

We don't get automatic cost of living raises here, and our wage doesn't go up when minimum wage goes up. I miss these things. In MN, I worked at a county hospital. We were prohibited by law from striking, but when other local hospitals formed a union and went on strike for higher pay/better benefits, our wage was raised by the same amount the union workers eventually received, to stay competitive.

Here, though, unemployment is relatively low. Is this a function of right to work? We don't have state income tax, which I appreciate. Property taxes, even in my high-tax county, are low compared to MN, and when I bought land here in 2002 it was dirt cheap, again in an expensive county, compared to MN.
 
Nova_C said:
Awesome! :D

The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 made Closed Shops, that is, shops that require union membership, illegal. Freedom of Association already ensures that people do not need to belong to an organization that they do not want to.

What does Right to Work do for worker choice that the Taft-Hartley act does not?
Click to expand...

Yes the Taft Hartley act eliminated "closed shops", but not "agency shops". An agency shop is a shop where an employee is not forced to join a union, but IS forced to pay their share of union dues.


I also listened to some sound bites which involved union members in Michigan threatening people, punching people, destroying property and acting like thugs. They even tore down and slashed a tent belonging to a conservative group, with people inside!! They were stomping on top of the tent while people were still trying to get out.

I hope they rot.
 
starsevol said:
Yes the Taft Hartley act eliminated "closed shops", but not "agency shops". An agency shop is a shop where an employee is not forced to join a union, but IS forced to pay their share of union dues.


I also listened to some sound bites which involved union members in Michigan threatening people, punching people, destroying property and acting like thugs. They even tore down and slashed a tent belonging to a conservative group, with people inside!! They were stomping on top of the tent while people were still trying to get out.

I hope they rot.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the second part has to do with anything, but with regards to the first:

How does forcing the union to provide representation to a non-paying member make that better? Why not just leave the worker that doesn't want to belong to their own devices? Right to Work legislation gives those non-paying employees the right to sue the union if they do not provide those services they are not paying for.

What part of forcing an organization to provide service for people who refuse to pay for those services is freedom?
 
Nova_C said:
I'm not sure what the second part has to do with anything, but with regards to the first:

How does forcing the union to provide representation to a non-paying member make that better? Why not just leave the worker that doesn't want to belong to their own devices? Right to Work legislation gives those non-paying employees the right to sue the union if they do not provide those services they are not paying for.

What part of forcing an organization to provide service for people who refuse to pay for those services is freedom?
Click to expand...

And the firefighters union in Massachusetts who fined it's members for not showing up at an Elizabeth Warren rally? Members who did not back the candadate that the union wanted were fined $250 if they were not there.

Human rights trump union rights in my opinion. Every.Single.Time.
 
starsevol said:
And the firefighters union in Massachusetts who fined it's members for not showing up at an Elizabeth Warren rally? Members who did not back the candadate that the union wanted were fined $250 if they were not there.

Human rights trump union rights in my opinion. Every.Single.Time.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Right to Work legislation?

A coal mine employer famously forced his workers to attend a Republican rally unpaid while also 'strongly encouraging' them all to donate to the Republican party.

How much you want to bet they weren't unionized?

This is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
 
Nova_C said:
What does this have to do with Right to Work legislation?

A coal mine employer famously forced his workers to attend a Republican rally unpaid while also 'strongly encouraging' them all to donate to the Republican party.

How much you want to bet they weren't unionized?

This is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
Click to expand...

Right to work elevates human rights over union rights.
Unions are no longer neccessary.
 
The only ones I respond to?

Isn't that interesting.

Too much work to click on my name to check my posting history to find out what a total untruth that is, eh?

Anyway, I can't find ANY evidence of Massachusetts firefighters being forced to attend the Elizabeth Warren rally. None. Nada.
 
starsevol said:
Right to work elevates human rights over union rights.
Unions are no longer neccessary.
Click to expand...

How so? What part of them does this? What mechanism does the legislation protect the worker from abuses normally handled by unions? Why are employers in Right to Work states allowed to fire employees without cause if employee rights are so important?
 
Idaho is a Right to Work State. I think that was another one of those laws that was trying to correct a problem and did, while creating a different problem. The Unions, a lot of them anyway, had/have gotten too big for their britches and did need a slap down, however Right to Work was more like kneecapping them. Almost the only decent jobs around here are the ones that still have a union presence, both my father and brother work at a food processing plant that is about half union. That is one of the best paying jobs you can get in this area. Only union members pay dues and only individuals who are members of the union get union representation when they have some kind of clash with the employer but everyone who works out there benefits from the same pay raises that the union negotiates. Most of the places around here that have no union presence in them often rape and pillage their employees because there is very little recourse for the employee other than to quit. At least the half union employers keep their noses cleaner because they will eventually get called on it by the union. So I guess my opinion is that I don't find unions either entirely good or bad but probably more good than bad.
 
Well looking at the first 5 pages of your post history. I would say the majority of the posts were on political threads or threads that turn into topics about American policy. There were a few on gamer threads and a few on the share your song. I am sure I could go back further than 5 pages but I got my answer.
 
Now looking at threads you have started. It seemed most were snake related in the beginning couple of years of being here. But since I have joined mostly posted in political threads or threads about America policies.
 
Yep. So now that you have rifled through my posting history, did you find what you were looking for?

Because the only kind of politics you guys want to talk about is American politics. I've started a couple Canadian politics threads and literally no one ever responded. I like to talk about politics.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
 
Whoa there bucko, I never said I had a problem with it.

You are the one that called me out on it being too much work. So I took your advice and looked through your posts. I did find what I was looking for, you like to argue for the sack of argument in most of those posts. Of course I didn't read all of them.

Most don't talk about Canada politics because for one most of us are not Canadians. I know nothing about Canadian politics nor, to be honest, care much about it.

Now if you started a thread on Canadian wildlife or places of beauty to visit in Canada, I would probably join in on the subject.
 
I get that most don't care about it. That's the part that I find most interesting, though I guess Americans have a stereotype about not caring about what happens beyond the US's borders. Most Americans I personally know aren't like that, but I guess the stereotype has to come from somewhere.

Anyway, if you didn't have a problem with it, I'm not sure why my posting history was even brought up then. I certainly don't think it's relevant to the debate at hand. And yes, it's a debate. Starsevol asked "What do you think?" If my opinion wasn't wanted, perhaps you can specify in the OP when I'm not to reply? I'm cool with that, btw. Totally get it.

And if I can get some good pics of the Aurora up here, you can bet I'll post 'em. :)
 
I was just asking a simple question to you, wondering if these were the only kind of threads your reply to. It is these threads that I usually see you post in. But I don't read the gamer threads, so I guess that is where I have missed your other posts.

I know starevol asked what were our thoughts on the subject but I didn't realize it was a debate. I figured we could give our opinions with arguments. But I guess I was wrong and some are just too touchy.
 
I'm not sure I understand that last bit. Like, we're to voice our opinion, but not engage anyone? Not question anyone?

Besides, my first post was a legitimate question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top