"Right to work" law.

[the_edsta]

But just think, if there were no unions businesses would be competing with other businesses to get the best employees. Some would offer better benefits and wages for the best and the brightest workers they could find.
And would be able to fire drunks and bad apples.

How many businesses have gone bankrupt due to union demands?
How many are forced to keep employees who are not good workers because the union he belongs to makes certain he keeps his job, thus can't hire someone better?
How many businesses can't hire more workers because they are forced to pay the wage the union demands?

And even if that thought is wrong, do you believe that choice equals freedom? I do.

Nothing like following up an innocent 'thoughts anyone?', with this brand of heavy-handed rhetoric ladled over multiple posts. Sounds like the kind of empty 'freedom' talk and demonizing of organized bodies of workers I'd expect to hear from some 19th century oil tycoon. But that is exactly what is so alluring about the right wing, I suppose; it gives the middle class a rabbit to chase.

 

[beautifullywild77]

wow... just wow... seriously?

 

[Nova_C]

So since everyone is talking about the freedoms granted by Taft-Hartley and no one is talking about the restrictions brought in by Right to Work, I gather we all agree it's unnecessary and predatory?

Okay, I think we can put this one to bed.

 

[starsevol]

Nothing like following up an innocent 'thoughts anyone?', with this brand of heavy-handed rhetoric ladled over multiple posts. Sounds like the kind of empty 'freedom' talk and demonizing of organized bodies of workers I'd expect to hear from some 19th century oil tycoon. But that is exactly what is so alluring about the right wing, I suppose; it gives the middle class a rabbit to chase.

So you DON'T think choice equals freedom?
Interesting......

 

[Soulwind]

I don't normally join in on these political threads as they usually end up devolving into chaos, but the whole bruhaha over this type of legislation just annoys me.

If you listen to ANY of the union folks, "right to work" legislation is going to "kill" the unions.

Hey there folks, NONE of this legislation (in any state that has passed laws of this kind) forces you to NOT join a union. All they ever do is make it so you can't be forced TO JOIN OR SUPPORT the union if you don't want to.

If you WANT to be in the union and get union representation YOU CAN!

If the unions are so great and provide so much for the workers, then folks should want to be in the union and the union shouldn't have anything to worry about.

The fact that they are so certain that having a CHOICE of not being in the union (or having union dues still taken out of your check even if you're not in the union) will "kill" them probably says something about how even they think of the union.

 

[Nova_C]

The fact that they are so certain that having a CHOICE of not being in the union (or having union dues still taken out of your check even if you're not in the union) will "kill" them probably says something about how even they think of the union.

If a company is legally required to provide everyone with their product, and every person has the choice whether or not they want to pay for that product, how long would that company be in business?

As I've said again and again and again, the Taft-Hartley act of 1947 already makes it illegal to force anyone to join a union. Right to Work does not provide that freedom. That freedom has been there for 65 years. What Right to Work legislation does is force unions to provide their services to all non-paying non-members in an industry where there is union presence.

There is a reason why the Right to Work states also have the lowest union presence in the US. Just to repeat since it keeps coming up: No one is forced to join a union. That freedom was enshrined in the Taft-Hartley act of 1947.

 

[captainjack0000]

But just think, if there were no unions businesses would be competing with other businesses to get the best employees. Some would offer better benefits and wages for the best and the brightest workers they could find.
And would be able to fire drunks and bad apples.

This might be true in many jobs where the best and the brightest are required, but think about low skill employment. The corporations don't want the best and the brightest, they want the cheapest and least likely to complain about it. So the competition then becomes a race to the bottom. The formation of the unions was to provide some floor to that bottom, so that people aren't working in crappy dangerous conditions without paid medical leave or a reasonable living wage. If you eliminate unions, then the race to the bottom is back on, and people in destitute situations will either take the crappy job or starve. It may not ever get like a garment factory in Honduras or an electronics factory in China because we have a minium wage and OSHA, but even those are fairly limited. And often rules are violated and the employees have no recourse because they're disposable. The company will fire them and hire a new set of workers.

How many businesses have gone bankrupt due to union demands?
How many are forced to keep employees who are not good workers because the union he belongs to makes certain he keeps his job, thus can't hire someone better?
How many businesses can't hire more workers because they are forced to pay the wage the union demands?

I didn't say all unions were good. Sometimes unions get blamed for bankrupting companies when mismanagement from the higher ups should be to blame, but I am sure there are cases where unions destroyed the company.

I highly doubt companies are going to hire more people because they pay their employees higher wages. If they had a way of reducing costs they would because they're greedy too. They'll only hire more employees when it becomes profitable to do so. The hiring someone better arguement was addressed in the first section. Better as defined by whom?

And even if that thought is wrong, do you believe that choice equals freedom? I do.

This is a straw man argument. Reducing freedom to choice or vice versa is flawed. I can choose between Coke or Pepsi, but my choices are still limited to the availability of the product. Does that mean my freedom only comes in two flavors?

Most people don't have many choices. Freedom is the ability to wake up when you want, work at the job you want for as long or as little as you want, travel and live where you want and be able to spend as much time with your family and friends as you want, without living in fear of murderers or bill collectors. Freedom is the ability to knowingly make the wrong choice. All of this however falls within the purview of the golden rule. I don't have the freedom to speed down a highway at 100mph because it interferes with other people's livelihoods. Virtually nobody has the level of freedom I describe. Only the independently wealthy have that option. And some of them can even get away with speeding down highways or other illegal actions.

 

[captainjack0000]

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues. Nonmembers who object to that requirement may be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and in providing services to all represented employees, but not, with certain exceptions, to the union's political activities or organizing employees of other employers.

(Wikipedia)

Okay, so they are not required to join the union, but still are required to pay for representation in collective bargaining.

Right to Work States (and it probably depends on the state) eliminates the requirement to pay for representation. I think some of eliminated collective bargaining all together, but don't quote me on that because I'm not sure.

 

[starsevol]

This might be true in many jobs where the best and the brightest are required, but think about low skill employment. The corporations don't want the best and the brightest, they want the cheapest and least likely to complain about it. So the competition then becomes a race to the bottom. The formation of the unions was to provide some floor to that bottom, so that people aren't working in crappy dangerous conditions without paid medical leave or a reasonable living wage. If you eliminate unions, then the race to the bottom is back on, and people in destitute situations will either take the crappy job or starve. It may not ever get like a garment factory in Honduras or an electronics factory in China because we have a minium wage and OSHA, but even those are fairly limited. And often rules are violated and the employees have no recourse because they're disposable. The company will fire them and hire a new set of workers.

As someone who runs a company, I can honestly tell you that if you want the job done right, you need to pay what a worker is worth. Right now non union people are doing the very same jobs as union people, for less pay and less benefits. Does that mean that their work is inferior? Or does that mean that union workers are over paid? The market should decide what a job is worth, not a seperate entity.I didn't say all unions were good. Sometimes unions get blamed for bankrupting companies when mismanagement from the higher ups should be to blame, but I am sure there are cases where unions destroyed the company.

I highly doubt companies are going to hire more people because they pay their employees higher wages. If they had a way of reducing costs they would because they're greedy too. They'll only hire more employees when it becomes profitable to do so. The hiring someone better arguement was addressed in the first section. Better as defined by whom?

Reducing costs is the ONLY responsible way to run a company. And why would any company hire employees if it was not profitable to do so? Companies exist to make a profit and there is nothing wrong with that.

This is a straw man argument. Reducing freedom to choice or vice versa is flawed. I can choose between Coke or Pepsi, but my choices are still limited to the availability of the product. Does that mean my freedom only comes in two flavors?

Most people don't have many choices. Freedom is the ability to wake up when you want, work at the job you want for as long or as little as you want, travel and live where you want and be able to spend as much time with your family and friends as you want, without living in fear of murderers or bill collectors. Freedom is the ability to knowingly make the wrong choice. All of this however falls within the purview of the golden rule. I don't have the freedom to speed down a highway at 100mph because it interferes with other people's livelihoods. Virtually nobody has the level of freedom I describe. Only the independently wealthy have that option. And some of them can even get away with speeding down highways or other illegal actions.

I am sorry but I do not believe that equating choice with freedom is a straw man argument. Choice is about so much more than soft drinks and in my opinion anything that allows people to make even one more choice about their lives is a good thing.

 

[Nova_C]

(Wikipedia)

Okay, so they are not required to join the union, but still are required to pay for representation in collective bargaining.

Right to Work States (and it probably depends on the state) eliminates the requirement to pay for representation. I think some of eliminated collective bargaining all together, but don't quote me on that because I'm not sure.

They still get representation, though. So they get a service they aren't paying for, and if that service is withdrawn, they are able to file a lawsuit to be compensated for that lack of service.

Jobs require you to buy and maintain uniforms. Jobs require you to get haircuts on your own dime. Jobs require you to pay for all kinds of things.

Why is a job requiring you to pay for collective bargaining some massive restriction on freedom, but them requiring you to pay for all the other stuff totally okay?

 

[starsevol]

They still get representation, though. So they get a service they aren't paying for, and if that service is withdrawn, they are able to file a lawsuit to be compensated for that lack of service.

Jobs require you to buy and maintain uniforms. Jobs require you to get haircuts on your own dime. Jobs require you to pay for all kinds of things.

Why is a job requiring you to pay for collective bargaining some massive restriction on freedom, but them requiring you to pay for all the other stuff totally okay?

Well, I guess here is where we stand.

Right to work will be law of the land in Michigan.

I am thrilled about it.

Nova is not.

Maybe we check back in a few years and see if life in Michigan is better or worse since right to work has been enacted.

Deal?

 

[Nova_C]

Well, I guess here is where we stand.

Right to work will be law of the land in Michigan.

I am thrilled about it.

Nova is not.

Maybe we check back in a few years and see if life in Michigan is better or worse since right to work has been enacted.

Deal?

Sure.

Though lots of people are trying to stop the legislation from actually being enacted, and there's hope for those that are against it, so we'll see.

I'm most interested to see how this affects the UAW because this law will decimate that union in Michigan.

 

[starsevol]

Sure.

Though lots of people are trying to stop the legislation from actually being enacted, and there's hope for those that are against it, so we'll see.

I'm most interested to see how this affects the UAW because this law will decimate that union in Michigan.

As non citizens of Michigan there is nothing neither one of us can do about it.

I wouldn't mind seeing the UAW decimated.

We'll see what happens.....

 

[tsst]

Why does paying for something someone else doesn't have to pay for sound soooo familiar to me???? hmmmm

 

[starsevol]

Why does paying for something someone else doesn't have to pay for sound soooo familiar to me???? hmmmm

WOW I love you!! There, I just said it publically!!!!
Fantabulous point!!!!!!

 

[Nova_C]

Right, because forcing a business to provide a service free of charge is exactly the same as welfare.

Wow, you just solved everything.

 

[starsevol]

Right, because forcing a business to provide a service free of charge is exactly the same as welfare.

Wow, you just solved everything.

Actually, unions force the business to provide the service.
Union members pay for their representaton to the union, who does the dictating.
And if the non union member is doing the same job as the union member, sure he should get the same service.

 

[captainjack0000]

As someone who runs a company, I can honestly tell you that if you want the job done right, you need to pay what a worker is worth.

Well, see I think many companies don't care about if it is done right or wrong, they just want it done. When I worked a low skill job, I did it a heck of a lot better than many others and I got paid the same as everybody else. We don't exactly have a meritocracy. And this is a question of what we value, which is something we won't agree on.

Does that mean that their work is inferior? Or does that mean that union workers are over paid?

Neither - it means the nonunion worker is underpaid and should be paid the same as the union worker.

Companies exist to make a profit and there is nothing wrong with that.

We're a standstill too then because I think the corporate profit motive and the current form of capitalism we have is flawed, which is whole different debate.

 

[captainjack0000]

How is collective bargaining not part of the free market?

 

[Nova_C]

Unions are forcing the business to provide what service? The services I've been talking about is representation in negotiations in a collective bargaining agreement. That representation is provided by the union, not the business.