Right to Work
- Thread starter sync0s
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
liberal here.
as i understand it, right to work means you don't have to join a union to do a certain profession. i.e. a teacher can teach without joining a teacher's union.
although no sane person should choose non-union, i think it should their choice. although i would vote against right to work, that is the only way in which i would impose my will on the issue. i do not oppose right to work, so will not make any arguments accordingly.
vote what you believe.
as i understand it, right to work means you don't have to join a union to do a certain profession. i.e. a teacher can teach without joining a teacher's union.
although no sane person should choose non-union, i think it should their choice. although i would vote against right to work, that is the only way in which i would impose my will on the issue. i do not oppose right to work, so will not make any arguments accordingly.
vote what you believe.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the response and I feel relatively the same way. I've been looking for someone on the left to give me a reason why it should be opposed. I haven't anything except for Union advertisements spewing rhetoric.
stoneyfockbrook
New Member
Because Right to Work laws only favor the employer and do nothing for the employees
It is sort of like
The Patriot Act
What Patriot would favor a law that eliminates rights?
It is sort of like
The Patriot Act
What Patriot would favor a law that eliminates rights?
PraxicalExcercise
Member
The only thing that right-to-work laws usually do is make it easier for employers to fire you and to drag down unions that might otherwise provide positive wage pressure for jobs with significant union representation.
Right to work laws mean that everyone in a workplace benefits if there is any union representation, because they get the benefits of the same contract, union representation, etc -- but they don't have to pay dues to get it. There is literally no (or extremely little) benefit to actually being a union member. This rips off the union and drains their coffers, and since people don't have to pay in to get the benefits, they don't -- and then eventually the union dies out and the employer takes those bennies away.
It is already federal law that you cannot be required to join a union in order to work somewhere -- but if you work in a union shop and are covered by a contract that the union negotiated, they may levy a fee upon you for your fair share of the work they put in representing you. In general, since you're working in a union shop, you'll still be making more than you would be if you were working somewhere non-union even after paying that fee -- or full-on union dues. That's why people join unions in the first place -- because they'll benefit more from doing so, even with the union dues, than they would without.
States with strong 'right to work' laws tend to have lower wages, fewer benefits, and more abusive employers than states that protect the right to organize without parasitizing it -- that is, states without 'right to work laws'. As I said before, unions provide positive pressure on employers to treat you well -- if union members in union shops have significantly better pay and bennies than a non-union shop, then there's every reason for people to flock to the union employer, and that means that everyone else has to be at least a bit better in order to attract and retain quality employees. This benefits everyone.
...I fucking hate that term, 'right to work.' It's bullshit, particularly since most of the time it means that your employer can fire you without cause and cannot be sued for unjustly terminating you. This allows for many abuses. I respectfully suggest that you do some googling to educate yourself about this important subject. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/12/1064250/--Right-to-Shirk-Undercuts-the-Right-to-Work is a good overview.
Here's a more lucid explanation from someone who (probably) wasn't stoned when they were writing it:
Blaze Master
Well-Known Member
^^^^ like ^^^^
sync0s
Well-Known Member
What right is lost by Right to Work?
I'm not convinced that it is "easier to fire you," because most states still have termination laws. My state is at-will employment, but they still can't fire you for illegal reasons.
I fully expect those without a monopoly union to have lower wages and fewer benefits, often times unions are as greedy as the corporations they claim protect you from. The more "abusive" employers would be something you will have to prove to me.
The only legitimate point you made is the point about nonunion members are covered by the benefits of the union by federal law. Makes it interesting.
BTW, I'm not going to news outlets to get my "education" about right to work. I've been trying to find the bill text.
merkzilla
Active Member
I'm fairly conservative so I'm for right to work. Over here there was a bill restricting the powers of public unions (government unions). I listened to both sides and realized unions were purposely misleading union members into believing it would effect private sector unions. On top of that, I sort of realized these people were out of touch with reality (especially teachers, in this state on average a single teacher makes more then the median household income without even including benefits).
I think with that said, private sector unions have too much control over a company. They seem to have too much control in politics.
I don't really blame them, lawyers picked up on a fantastic scam to make a ton of money and blame corporations for having a bottom line.
I think with that said, private sector unions have too much control over a company. They seem to have too much control in politics.
I don't really blame them, lawyers picked up on a fantastic scam to make a ton of money and blame corporations for having a bottom line.
Right to work laws help the employee too. Who makes more? The union guy who is unemployed and has no unemployment benefits or the guy in the right to work state who still has a job? In right to work states the employee does not have to give notice if quitting. No 2 week notice, you quit and walk and there aint a goddamned thing they can do about it. Right to work states have better employment numbers.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Right to work gives the employer the right to fire you without any reason as long as it does not violate mostly Civil Laws. Voting for it would be foolish unless you own the company. I could fire you just because you are wearing a color shirt I don't like in a Right To Work state.. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/03/law-firm-fires-workers-for-wearing-orange/
londonfog
Well-Known Member
BULLSHIT ten letters BULLSHIT AGAIN
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
And lower wages and shitty benefits... yeah. just wonderful.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
If you dont have the skills to get a high paying job with good benefits... Why do you deserve it?
stoneyfockbrook
New Member
Don't care what you do. There is always someone who is better than you and cheaper willing to take your job. Time and aging is a linear progression. You do not get the years back you wasted at your company when they decided to hire someone else to replace you. I bet you are the guy always screaming about illegals taking jobs away from Americans as well.
merkzilla
Active Member
Reminds me of an article in reason magazine evaluating public unions that came out this month. A janitor in the private sector gets a salary of around $27,000 and one paid by uncle Sam $30,000 (probably excluding benefits). The general evaluation basically pointed out the income discrepancy between public and private which public workers being consistently paid more. The whole thing about public workers being more educated than private was also worked over pretty well, the numbers show that people with a high school diploma (and no high school diploma... now that is a mind fuck) were still getting paid more then their private sector counter parts.
I'm off topic like usual. Definitely a plug for reason magazine since they make me chuckle.
Got any proof of that? I can back up my claim.
Cost of living is lower in RtW states also, which offsets any "Lower Average Wage" you bandy about as if it were a social problem.
stoneyfockbrook
New Member
Data and Analysis
To determine the effect of right-to-work laws on wages we estimate log wage equations using the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s current population survey-outgoing rotation group (CPS-ORG) data for 2000. The sample consists of 152,576 prime age workers, ages 18-64, who earn wages or salaries. Average hourly wages for the sample were $15.54, and median hourly wages were $12.25. Median wages for workers living in right-to-work states were $11.45, while wages for those living in non-RTW states were $13.00, indicating that wages were 11.9% lower in RTW states.
http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/
stoneyfockbrook
New Member
This country has a long history with such anti-union laws. Most states with these measures are in the West or the South, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and have lower wages and a poorer quality of life.
A better name for Vos' proposal would be "race to the bottom." Here's why.
• So-called right-to-work states have lower wages.
Good wages and benefits are key to quality of life - both to support families and to provide a reliable tax base for education, infrastructure and public services. Yet the annual median income in right-to-work states is $6,185 less than in other states, according to 2009 U.S. Census Bureau data.
What's more, these anti-union states tend to have higher poverty rates, less access to health care and lower-performing schools. In the Annie E. Casey Foundation's well-respected "Kids Count" survey, the three worst states for children are in right-to-work states and the three best all allow workers to form strong unions.
Would you rather have your child go to the University of Wisconsin or the University of Mississippi? Would you prefer to raise a family in Mississippi, where the 2009 child poverty rate was 31%, or in Wisconsin, where it was 16.7%?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/112101464.html
A better name for Vos' proposal would be "race to the bottom." Here's why.
• So-called right-to-work states have lower wages.
Good wages and benefits are key to quality of life - both to support families and to provide a reliable tax base for education, infrastructure and public services. Yet the annual median income in right-to-work states is $6,185 less than in other states, according to 2009 U.S. Census Bureau data.
What's more, these anti-union states tend to have higher poverty rates, less access to health care and lower-performing schools. In the Annie E. Casey Foundation's well-respected "Kids Count" survey, the three worst states for children are in right-to-work states and the three best all allow workers to form strong unions.
Would you rather have your child go to the University of Wisconsin or the University of Mississippi? Would you prefer to raise a family in Mississippi, where the 2009 child poverty rate was 31%, or in Wisconsin, where it was 16.7%?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/112101464.html
tet1953
Well-Known Member
I do not have an opinion on the issue but am confused by your answer UB. You said, albeit in different order, "I think it should <be?> their choice", "I do not oppose right to work", but then "I would vote against right to work".
Doesn't add up for me lol