Right-to-work vs Unions

[deafdrummer]

I don't know if this can be discussed here, but if not, just close the thread. I just want to pass on something.

Anyway, S... OB... What is going on... ?

Jimmy Hoffa Warns Of "Civil War" As Michigan Governor Signs "Right-To-Work" Into Law | ZeroHedge

And the thick of it is here:

Meanwhile In Lansing, Michigan... | ZeroHedge

I hope they never bring that here to Texas, a right-to-work state. Below the features are comments from readers, and I suggest reading them to understand the situation. If you are in MI, you know what to do; be careful. This is a bad situation brewing, and I'm afraid the USSA will take advantage of this.

Discuss at your peril.

:rl:

 

[VacationGuy234]

I graduated high school with a a degree in HVAC. After school, I tested for the union and scored in the top 95%. I was told that because I didn't have family in the union my chances of getting in would be zero. I understood.

Afterwards, I worked at non-union company which was employed by the union so it could bid competitively for work. We worked at state jobs which are governed by the right-to-know laws which means they pay prevailing state wadge. Workers at another company, not mine, complained that the they were not being paid enough. As a result the state shook down the job and my company was forced to pay me prevailing wadge. Shortly afterwards, I was laid off. My company then tried to file tax forms that I was a contractor so I would pay double taxation(didn't work, I kept the pay stubs and turned them in to the IRS).

Because of that history, I went to college and got a degree. It was the best thing I've ever done. The world is much bigger than the union. Most of my friends have been laid off for more years than I've been working.

To be fair, unions are not a bad thing in places that need it, but wadge laws have changed and it's really just a club now that excludes people. The dues don't even help people when they are on strike. I wonder where the money goes.

IMO, everyone has and should have the right to work.

 

[Foxrac]

This thread will go to political/war section because right to work law is very political discussion.

In past, I thought right to work was not bad because it allow employee's choice to not pay the union dues, but I just found that was bad and unfair for union employees because they pay dues since some employees who work in unionized workplace without pay dues, take advantage of union's benefits, such as wage, health insurance, pension, vacation, commission, etc.

If workplace is unionized, majority of workers approved via election and you are expecting to pay dues to cover the cost of union representative. If you are not happy with unionized jobs so quit the job and find a non-union jobs, instead of whining at government and ask to pass the right to work law. If I was union worker so I will not like to see any non-union workers take advantage of union representative without pay any dues. It is just like someone is not paying any taxes and take advantage of services that government offered, it is like receive SSDI benefit and never pay any SS tax or receive Directv service without paying monthly bill, for example.

I understand about people are speaking out about public sectors (state, federal employees) because they pay taxes to fund them, but for private sectors, so it is typically none of business, except for managers or executives of unionized companies.

I don't support right to work at all, so you have option to not pay due by find a non-union jobs or departments, but order to unionize so require an election with majority of workers voted for.

I don't know about what union workers going on in Michigan and they possibly relocate the factories to non-right to work law like New York or California. It will hurt Michigan really bad and state legislators should prepared for possible crisis. Indiana had right to work law in 1957 but repealed in 1965, so they put back again last year. I personally think that right to work law (in MI) should goes to ballot and let voters make decision.

Texas became right to work law in 1993, just 3 years later after my grandma retired from unionized telephone company and I didn't think that Texas had publicity issue because union was always weak in southern states.

 

[ambrosia]

I'm SC, a right to work state, I have heard people here say "this is a right to work state!" all braggy, I don't think they actually know what it means.

 

[Foxrac]

I'm SC, a right to work state, I have heard people here say "this is a right to work state!" all braggy, I don't think they actually know what it means.

Yup, same in Alabama, so I just call as right to work for less.

 

[Lau2046]

When I was with another federal agency (and thankful to no longer be with them), we were "in the union," upon being hired. Never saw them do a damn thing. Now I'm employed elsewhere and we have a union there too, but you pay to join. I'm not in it and don't care to be. When I was crapped on for five years, they never did anything and turned a blind eye to all the other wrong doings. Unions served a purpose at one time but now they just serve themselves and screw everyone else.

Laura

 

[VacationGuy234]

I'm SC, a right to work state, I have heard people here say "this is a right to work state!" all braggy, I don't think they actually know what it means.

I agree. Most people do not know what it means...

EDIT: Actually, that would include me. It does not mean what I thought it means:

A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. "Right-to-work" laws do not, as the short phrase might suggest, aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers.

I thought it was the right for both union and non-union work, but I was wrong.

 

[diehardbiker]

Unions are history, they have damaged the "right to work" already. Those who are in unions are suckers.

Michigan government is on right track, bye bye Union your days are numbered.

And finally I don't give a fuck to Union because they have discriminated me in the past so up theirs ain't givin them support at all.

 

[Foxrac]

Unions are history, they have damaged the "right to work" already. Those who are in unions are suckers.

Michigan government is on right track, bye bye Union your days are numbered.

And finally I don't give a fuck to Union because they have discriminated me in the past so up theirs ain't givin them support at all.

Your wishful thinking about the union goes bye bye - not going happen in anytime soon because right to work law isn't going destroy the unions.

The unions are already existed in states with right to work law and it has been since passage of Taft-Hartley Act, so only difference with right to work law, it means you don't have to pay due but the union is obligated to represent you, regardless on status.

The right to work law is no belong to union and the union is committed to improve the workplace and protect the workers, so it has nothing with right to work.

If you are discriminated by union so you should file the complaint with federal because discrimination by union is illegal under Taft-Hartley Act and you supposed to receive compensation from unfair practice with unions. If it doesn't happen to you so you probably have different stories. Like I said, there are good and bad unions so you looks like have halo effect.

 

[diehardbiker]

Already long past statute limitation, so can't sue and I don't care.

With small percentage of worker in United States that is organized, it is now too small to notice. Majority of workers is non-union, that is why it is pretty much history. During early 1990s, union is pretty much everywhere, not anymore.

If you are discriminated by union so you should file the complaint with federal because discrimination by union is illegal under Taft-Hartley Act and you supposed to receive compensation from unfair practice with unions. If it doesn't happen to you so you probably have different stories. Like I said, there are good and bad unions so you looks like have halo effect.

 

[Foxrac]

Already long past statute limitation, so can't sue and I don't care.

With small percentage of worker in United States that is organized, it is now too small to notice. Majority of workers is non-union, that is why it is pretty much history. During early 1990s, union is pretty much everywhere, not anymore.

The union workers are always minority since USA was born and most highest percent was near 35% in 1950's, so the unions were grew so fast in 1930's and 1940's due to Wagner Act, but got less after Taft-Hartley Act. The union workers never made majority in USA but it is true for European countries, also there is strong union presence in Canada.

There were a lot of history with attack on unions until 1935 and there were a lot of ugly situations from employers.

Early 1990's? No, unions were still minority, so if you work for service jobs at minimum wage, so you will never see any unions. The unions are common in public sectors, oil companies, manufacturing, universities, natural resources (coal, iron), delivery, teamsters and meat factories today.

I think you know that many of my families were union members, especially my grandparent and my father (he works at university).

 

[rockin'robin]

Rembering a small newspaper in N.C. that I began working for...and seemed automatically I was "pressured" to join the Union....And several other employees were pressured also...everyday!....some got threats and reported it to the Boss....we wound up in Court...My being afraid I was gonna lose my job, but it all turned out good and several Union employees were fired.

 

[Foxrac]

Rembering a small newspaper in N.C. that I began working for...and seemed automatically I was "pressured" to join the Union....And several other employees were pressured also...everyday!....some got threats and reported it to the Boss....we wound up in Court...My being afraid I was gonna lose my job, but it all turned out good and several Union employees were fired.

NC - right to work law since late 1940's.

It doesn't mean overall unions are bad, so you just have bad experience in other side.

 

[Foxrac]

Also, the right to work law in MI doesn't apply to police officers and firemen, so it is suspect that they make an exemption for specified workplace, so the police unions can be very nasty.

There are pros and cons with union.

 

[diehardbiker]

I mean 1900 not 1990 sorry.

The union workers are always minority since USA was born and most highest percent was near 35% in 1950's, so the unions were grew so fast in 1930's and 1940's due to Wagner Act, but got less after Taft-Hartley Act. The union workers never made majority in USA but it is true for European countries, also there is strong union presence in Canada.

There were a lot of history with attack on unions until 1935 and there were a lot of ugly situations from employers.

Early 1990's? No, unions were still minority, so if you work for service jobs at minimum wage, so you will never see any unions. The unions are common in public sectors, oil companies, manufacturing, universities, natural resources (coal, iron), delivery, teamsters and meat factories today.

I think you know that many of my families were union members, especially my grandparent and my father (he works at university).

 

[Foxrac]

I mean 1900 not 1990 sorry.

I found out that chart said union members was small in 1900 but grew so fast to 1920's, so went declined due to Great Depression. After economy recovered, the unions have went up until 1950'a.

There were shitload of manufacturing jobs in 1900.

 

[TXgolfer]

Well for Michigan I believe this is an outstanding move. Good to see they didn't cower to the thugs. Hopefully the state will be able to save Detroit now.

 

[Jiro]

Well for Michigan I believe this is an outstanding move. Good to see they didn't cower to the thugs. Hopefully the state will be able to save Detroit now.

able to save Detroit now? yea... probably a same working condition as China

 

[Grummer]

i thought unions is about right to Keep jobs and better wages, like it barter, negoitate, even argue with bosses/managers on pays, and you squibble about right to jobs?? lol, dont make me laugh, whats better right to job (and no say on how much your pay is going to be), or right to Keep jobs, and HAVE a say on pushing your wages to follow the inflation...

right to jobs is a real step BACKWARDS

sorry fellas, i juat dont get the hype about RTJ's ...it seem fashionable yes, and that, a bad one...
Persuasion
indeed in the past unions may have not welcomed some people, but that doesnt mean unions are going to be like that now...people in politics tend to have a [clever] way of influncing people fear the old and go with the new, whereas the new is worse the the old...
AND politics have a way of making people's memories slips, by taking focus away from real matters thereby by using political persuasion it incite to a limited form of understanding (mainly because people are generally too busy to be very involved with politis and such) so the general population will go with 'conventional' dumbed down public thinking (even though "dumb down" was not a a coined terms yet, but indeed its practice was used widely in the past, just it didnt have a 'name' for this 'dumbing tactics'. It had certainly became 'recognised' and 'coined' which is hardly surprising, just look at the advent of all these new-fangled text books, self-help books appeared on the market in book shops, supposedly aimed towards people who wanting to business leaders, or self-made entrpernuers or such. "Dumbing down" had only just been made public" simply because it was seen as an way of making money - SELLING THESE BOOKS AND at the same time, its contribution by selling these types of 'special self help books' creates a MOVEMENT which it highly Influential that so potent, it shaped and changed the way people thought about businesses and rights. Of course, it had became a 'name' of the tactic now, and that the media (hard form- books, in soft forms in the digital media in the internet, in which a way, 'more people are 'aware' of it.....like aware that business or pesudo-politics-crackpot half-science often found in yuppies' magazines, brandishing favourite slogan of the day, "dumbing down" was a 'political topic' , but incredibaly, it was never publicised as an issue, I mean, it never become an object of debate in politics except Neo liberalism or Conservatism. and nothing more. Of what it is, 'at hand' in general' like weighing the balance or adjusting the scale of how much to dumb down or how to rationalise or justify a means of re-create new cleasses of clueless people (consumers made 'ready' for the market) are left entirely OUT of politics, so of course, it remains to be poorly understood as concepts, and as topics of hiuman rights is greyed into it.... and blah blah blah whatever the fuck...

 

[Jiro]

What do ‘right-to-work’ laws do to a state’s economy?

2) Under right-to-work laws, workers reap fewer gains from economic growth. Supporters of right-to-work laws often argue that they’ll help attract more businesses to a state. Opponents retort that weakening unions will lead to an erosion of wages. (A large Economic Policy Institute study from 2011 found that, after controlling for a host of factors, right-to-work states have lower wages on average than pro-union states.)

Both arguments might be correct. One careful study conducted by Hofstra’s Lonnie Stevans in 2007 found that right-to-work laws do help boost the number of businesses in a state — but the gains mostly went to owners, while average wages went down. ”Although right-to-work states may be more attractive to business,” Stevans concludes, “this does not necessarily translate into enhanced economic verve in the right-to-work state if there is little ‘trickle-down’ from business owners to the non-unionized workers.”

So business owners gain, and workers lose. One possible retort is that these states could simply set up new safety-net programs to compensate workers who are hurt. But that leads to another question: Without strong unions in place, who will push for these policies?

so their supporting argument is that it will attract businesses and provide workers with more choice.... I see... by lowering wage and reducing quality so that business owners can pocket some more dollars while workers suffer but hey... they're free to quit and work somewhere else, right?

indeed a very slippery slope.