Unions Vs Right to Work "RTW"

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Calvin, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. Calvin

    Calvin In Hazzard County Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,191
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Location:
    California
    I'm giving this subject another chance since a while back the union related thread (Hostess) was closed. This is a debate about unions and right to work states.

    Here, I'll start:

    [​IMG]

    The Blue states are unions while Red states are RTW states.

    Here's the Source that I'm using the map as example of right to work and forced unions.

    The "Right to Work or RTW" weakens the unionization and one of the signs of downfall of unions. Sure we need unions to protect workers and raise wages and pensions as well as retirements. This at a huge cost to both unions and company and passing the cost to customers.

    "RTW" doesn't necessarily need union representation but gets less protection from unions. People who doesn't want to join a union or being forced to join, they have a choice to work without unions.

    I am a member of union at my workplace, I joined after high school and been working since. Do I like unions? Well, there is good and bad about unions and it doesn't help with some case if you are rookie or low seniority, the more seniority you have the easier it gets depending on industrial jobs.

    I want to note that unions are also part of supporting political campaigns so we can't discuss any of that here. I ask that we can have civil debate that we can agree or disagree on. Thanks.
     
  2. jonnyghost

    jonnyghost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    USA, Earth
    Interesting. I wasn't aware i lived in a state with unions. Must not be many as i've never known anyone to mention them where I'm from. I have mixed feeling about them. Mostly i'm sick of people wanting my money and don't like the idea of being told i have to join something but i can see the benefits as well.
     
  3. AlleyCat

    AlleyCat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Messages:
    16,957
    Likes Received:
    1,475
    Location:
    In my time zone
    I hadn't known there were 2 different kinds either. It's no surprise that my state is a union state since I know of many unions here.
     
  4. TXgolfer

    TXgolfer Dream Weaver Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    19,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Everywhere
    I believe New Mexico and Missouri will go RTW in the next few years. Living in both CA and TX I can tell you the difference is night and day.
     
  5. Calvin

    Calvin In Hazzard County Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,191
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Location:
    California
    I would not be surprised that there will be more union states are in the works to change to RTW. Most of the unions protect industry workers such as railroads, airlines, teachers, postal/package industries.

    In a way union helps with benefits that's one positive thing, but in the workforce, it can be difficult or challenging with seniority and your rights. In many union cases, seniority rules everything.
     
  6. Foxrac

    Foxrac Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    44,331
    Likes Received:
    406
    Michigan and Indiana are right to work state now.

    I used to work at private workplace in forced union and right to work states, but made no difference due to no union at workplace that I used to work.
     
  7. Foxrac

    Foxrac Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    44,331
    Likes Received:
    406
    Missouri is very likely, so is Kentucky too.

    I don't think New Mexico will go RTW but I can't give a reason because political is off limit, sorry. (I could give answer via PM)
     
  8. rockin'robin

    rockin'robin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    24,155
    Likes Received:
    337
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Remembering a small newspaper in Carolina where I worked....at first I was sort of enticed to join....later on...actually threatened. Being young with a small child, actually I could not afford the dues.....A few months later, everything went to Court and the union workers were fired, not because of me...but they had been threatening many others to join....Soon after, I left the state and moved, landing a much better paying job (being a journeyman) at a bigger newspaper. And no union there either....everyone was happy with their salary and working conditions.
     
  9. TXgolfer

    TXgolfer Dream Weaver Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    19,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Everywhere
    I know what you are thinking. NM is a toss up for sure. But the new Gov is popular and wants to go RTW to compete with TX and AZ. It will be interesting.
     
  10. naisho

    naisho Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,436
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I'm fine with the concept of unions if it is for honest benefit, but I'm personally not interested to get involved in them. At past jobs that asked if I wanted to join their unions I declined.

    What I don't like about unions is the scheming and political issues inside union (the union politics that are not related to USA). Like senority, exposing corrupt officials, or taking people to court. There was this guy I met recently in one of my social institution who is very involved with civil rights and pro-union for the underdogs. He did a lot of unethical things like recording conversations (without permission), take people to court or made lies about their salaries. I think this area of unions give it a bad rep.

    I did find the concept of union merging is interesting, since it very similar to federal agency merges, like city police mergers. Who becomes the chief, who gets what position after the merger etc.
     
  11. Foxrac

    Foxrac Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    44,331
    Likes Received:
    406
    Yes, that's true about New Mexico has opposition between legislature and governor.

    Wisconsin could go RTW by surprise like Michigan did.
     
  12. Calvin

    Calvin In Hazzard County Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,191
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Location:
    California
    Yes, there is some corrupt union officials out there and some are forced to pay dues to support corrupt officials and politicians unfortunately.
     
  13. TXgolfer

    TXgolfer Dream Weaver Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    19,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Everywhere
    Unions could be a good thing. Unfortunately they threw their weight behind some bad policies and started working outside of the scope of workers rights. Those teachers strikes rubbed most people the wrong way which is sad because everybody supports teachers. Another example is the way they backed workers caught red hands while drinking on the job. As long as unions support things like that, things that hurt children and honest workers, biz and unions will continue to butt heads and biz will continue to look for states where they will receive better support.
     
  14. Calvin

    Calvin In Hazzard County Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,191
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Location:
    California
    I see that a lot of time around here, plenty of head butting discussion. I had a case that one worker was drunk on the job with alcohol smell. That person was given a choice to go to AA class... that person has since moved to another location within the same company.

    Also driver had DUI on the job delivering packages, rammed the truck head on into the tree. He was arrested and no longer works for the company. Heard he was going thru a divorce and had a beef with management that time.
     
  15. Foxrac

    Foxrac Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    44,331
    Likes Received:
    406
    Yes, they have a lot of scandal too so that caused people no longer to support or trust the union.

    I found the union is much worse in US than in Canada - how is sad.
     
  16. Foxrac

    Foxrac Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    44,331
    Likes Received:
    406
    For me, I'm not pro-RTW or pro-forced union.

    I'm more of choice - I believe workers are free to have a choice to join the union or not. If workers do not want to join the union so they shouldn't have access to union related benefits or represented under union, but non-union workers will have access to benefits that companies provided (like Walmart health insurance plan instead of union run benefits) and deal with problem to manager instead of complain to union representative.

    That's my stance for US, however if unions have great reputation and receive lot of support from citizens so forced union may not bad idea, but not in case for US anymore due to scandals and a lot of issues with American unions.
     
  17. VacationGuy234

    VacationGuy234 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Major parts of our economy, besides things like price floors for food, rely on prices set by markets. Prices cannot fall if operational cost cannot be adjusted. Because of this, Unions can cause whole companies to collapse as was the case with Hostess.

    Right to work is really an extension of union wadges without the unionization. But, in addition to this, states have prevailing wage laws which state prices for certain labor.

    Does it not make sense to move from unions to prevailing wadge? The state can set wadges for certain labor based on supply and demand(of course, absent a political argument here).
     
  18. Foxrac

    Foxrac Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    44,331
    Likes Received:
    406
    Why union is traditionally weak in southern states?
     
  19. Calvin

    Calvin In Hazzard County Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,191
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Location:
    California
    This might be the clue:

    The Decline of Union Power

     
  20. rockin'robin

    rockin'robin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    24,155
    Likes Received:
    337
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Are Calif. labor-protest laws constitutional? Supreme Court turns away case

    Members of a labor union picketed a non-union grocery store in Sacramento, Calif. The US Supreme Court declined an appeal challenging the constitutionality of two state laws that allow such picketing.

    The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up an appeal challenging the constitutionality of two California laws that allow labor unions to picket on the private property of a targeted non-union business, despite the objections of the property owner.

    Critics of the laws say they violate the First Amendment rights of the property owner and the Equal Protection Clause by establishing a content-based preference that affords a higher level of protection to the speech of union officials during a labor dispute than to other would-be speakers.

    The issue arose in a case involving a grocery store in Sacramento, Calif., owned by the Ralphs grocery chain.

    The store’s workers are not unionized. Shortly after it opened in 2007, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 began picketing the business five days a week, eight hours a day.

    The group of four to eight union members picketed at the front entrance to the store on private property and in the privately owned parking lot.

    Store managers complained that the protests were confrontational and designed to undercut the store’s commercial operations by attempting to encourage customers to boycott the non-union business.

    The company asked police to remove the protesters from its property. The police said it needed a court order.

    Ralphs filed suit against the union in 2008, seeking a court order and injunction to block the labor group from picketing on its private property.

    The store’s lawyers challenged the constitutionality of two provisions of California law that place restrictions on the authority of state courts to issue injunctions concerning a labor dispute. They are state versions of a 1932 federal law that barred the federal courts from becoming involved in efforts to break an ongoing strike.

    The law established that unions have a right to peacefully publicize a labor dispute and that the courts may not interfere with that right.

    Lawyers for the California union argued that the state provisions are constitutional and deserve to be upheld.

    A California judge questioned the constitutionality of the two provisions, but ultimately upheld them and declined to issue an injunction against the union based on existing legal precedent in California. A state appeals court, however, reversed that decision. The appeals court overturned the earlier precedent and declared both laws unconstitutional.

    The case went to the California Supreme Court. The state high court reversed the appeals court and declared that the two state laws at issue did not violate free speech and equal protection guarantees in the US Constitution.

    Urging the US Supreme Court to take up the case, lawyers for Ralphs said the California provisions give those engaged in labor-related speech a “free pass to trespass on private property by closing the court-house doors to the property owner.”

    “If the content of the protester’s speech had been about any other topic – had they been proselytizing, campaigning, protesting military action, or requesting charitable donations – the protesters would have been trespassers, and Ralphs could have obtained injunctive relief compelling them to stay off Ralphs’ property,” wrote Deanne Maynard in a brief to the high court on behalf of grocery-store chain.

    “But because the content of the protesters’ speech was about labor issues, the Supreme Court of California held that the Union representatives could not be ejected from Ralphs’ private property by Ralphs or by any court,” Ms. Maynard wrote.

    There is no evidence that union picketers impeded or harassed customers at the store, San Francisco lawyer Steven Stemerman wrote in his brief on behalf of the union.

    He warned the justices about the potential consequences of embracing the grocery chain’s view of the law.

    “Accepting Ralphs’ theory would have radical implications,” Mr. Stemerman said. Similar laws, both at the federal level and in many states, would face challenges and be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, he said.

    He said that the California laws do not abridge anyone’s free speech rights and thus cannot violate the First Amendment.

    The case was Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (12-1162).

    Are Calif. labor-protest laws constitutional? Supreme Court turns away case
     

Share This Page

Looking to buy hearing aids online? Check out Hearex.com