Right-to-work vs Unions

[Grummer]

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


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.

i knew it would be close to something like this, good find Jiro...!

 

[Jiro]

i knew it would be close to something like this, good find Jiro...!

no idea why these folks keep buying into their scheme and not realizing that they'll continue to stay poor and yet they blame us. oh well. their loss.

 

[deafdrummer]

Because they have to up their skills and find better paying jobs or LEARN to live within their means. Don't forget that if a union member makes better money per hour after everything has been deducted, including dues, then that employee HAS to be more expensive than another employee in a non-union environment, which would translate to higher product costs. Why would you rather make $30 an hour with, say $5 an hour going to dues (I know nothing about dues, so I'm just going by the seat of my pants) than make $28 in a non-union environment? I would think that the purpose of a union is not only better work conditions, but also more money.

Just look at California. The cost of living is much higher there than in Texas, and I have to pay THEIR prices. The cost of a jacket relative to a CA resident's salary is lower than in Texas. Suppose you have this.

Texas:
Make $2000 a month
Expenses are $1350 a month
You have $650 to play with
A $300 jacket is about 46% of discretionary income (income after bills are paid)

California:
Make $2700 doing the SAME thing there (we have stores there)
Expenses are probably $1800-1900 a month
Even at $1900 a month, you still have $800 left
That same jacket would take up 37% of your discretionary income

That is what I don't like.

Interesting that unions have not been able gain a foothold in retail because of the frustration factor in organizing these employees. The issue is the high turn-over nature of retail and the sensitive nature of the products they sell (toilet paper, soap, food, the basics EVERYONE needs for daily living). Quite frankly, unions are wasting their time with retail because it is NOT A TRADE. You just hang out all day in a building talking to people all day and moving things around. Sure, you help a customer find what they're looking for and help them avoid costly buying mistakes, but THAT'S ALL. Customers are supposed to do THEIR reseach and due diligence in such decisions in the first place. If they screw up, that is their problem, not mine. I'd rather be doing something USEFUL, like something that contributes to the existence of infrastructure or making something that someone can use. Calling retail a trade is a joke to me. It's like, "Wait a minute, retail is a trade? But that's a job for kids to learn job responsibility, managing their income, develop basic work and people skills, and then MOVE ON to a real job." Oh, wait a minute. I AM a retail worker. And I AM nearing 50... Just so you know I'm not calling the kettle black. I'm aware of that. I work in that environment, so I have a good grasp of the kind of people who love retail. I can't stand it, but I got sucked into it and trapped, and it's what I know how to do well. I hate it, but I'm good at it. Just like Dad was in the oil patch, but hated it. For 52 years...

So please tell me, union members, why is it to my advantage to be a union member if I am in a trade subject to "right-to-work abuses?" I will admit that we do not even make living wages. The running joke among managers is that "How many roommates you have depends on where you are in your 'little career.' " A supervisor has 2 roommates, an assistant manager has 1 roommate, and it would be a store manager who would be the first to be able to make it relatively comfortably on one's own. Not just barely making it, but doing WELL compared to people driving new cars, "owning" MacMansions, and taking the twice-yearly trip to Barbados plus monthly plane trips to see family.

I believe that right-to-work abuses can include:
1) cutting hours back in slow times
2) hiring more people for the holidays rather than asking current employees to step up
3) pulling payroll from stores doing well to help keep stores in other regions who are not doing well.

However, these cutting measures are based on economic realities. What would you do with employees standing around when there's no customers, truck merch and backstock has been pulled to the floor, and the store is clean? What do you do with employees who are not able to commit more hours because of another job or caretaker responsibilities? What about having to close the least-performing stores because you didn't invest the money in payroll to keep people interested in working there and now have to pay unemployment insurance? Closing a store is expensive. But that's what we have to do. The last two months before Thanksgiving has SUCKED. I HATE SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER because it's so damn slow.

Please advise, because I'm about to see about getting into something else to do (don't know what that is, and haven't been able to answer that question in 28 years).

 

[TXgolfer]

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

Lol, At least they would be working.

 

[TXgolfer]

Because they have to up their skills and find better paying jobs or LEARN to live within their means. Don't forget that if a union member makes better money per hour after everything has been deducted, including dues, then that employee HAS to be more expensive than another employee in a non-union environment, which would translate to higher product costs. Why would you rather make $30 an hour with, say $5 an hour going to dues (I know nothing about dues, so I'm just going by the seat of my pants) than make $28 in a non-union environment? I would think that the purpose of a union is not only better work conditions, but also more money.

Just look at California. The cost of living is much higher there than in Texas, and I have to pay THEIR prices. The cost of a jacket relative to a CA resident's salary is lower than in Texas. Suppose you have this.

Texas:
Make $2000 a month
Expenses are $1350 a month
You have $650 to play with
A $300 jacket is about 46% of discretionary income (income after bills are paid)

California:
Make $2700 doing the SAME thing there (we have stores there)
Expenses are probably $1800-1900 a month
Even at $1900 a month, you still have $800 left
That same jacket would take up 37% of your discretionary income

That is what I don't like.

Interesting that unions have not been able gain a foothold in retail because of the frustration factor in organizing these employees. The issue is the high turn-over nature of retail and the sensitive nature of the products they sell (toilet paper, soap, food, the basics EVERYONE needs for daily living). Quite frankly, unions are wasting their time with retail because it is NOT A TRADE. You just hang out all day in a building talking to people all day and moving things around. Sure, you help a customer find what they're looking for and help them avoid costly buying mistakes, but THAT'S ALL. Customers are supposed to do THEIR reseach and due diligence in such decisions in the first place. If they screw up, that is their problem, not mine. I'd rather be doing something USEFUL, like something that contributes to the existence of infrastructure or making something that someone can use. Calling retail a trade is a joke to me. It's like, "Wait a minute, retail is a trade? But that's a job for kids to learn job responsibility, managing their income, develop basic work and people skills, and then MOVE ON to a real job." Oh, wait a minute. I AM a retail worker. And I AM nearing 50... Just so you know I'm not calling the kettle black. I'm aware of that. I work in that environment, so I have a good grasp of the kind of people who love retail. I can't stand it, but I got sucked into it and trapped, and it's what I know how to do well. I hate it, but I'm good at it. Just like Dad was in the oil patch, but hated it. For 52 years...

So please tell me, union members, why is it to my advantage to be a union member if I am in a trade subject to "right-to-work abuses?" I will admit that we do not even make living wages. The running joke among managers is that "How many roommates you have depends on where you are in your 'little career.' " A supervisor has 2 roommates, an assistant manager has 1 roommate, and it would be a store manager who would be the first to be able to make it relatively comfortably on one's own. Not just barely making it, but doing WELL compared to people driving new cars, "owning" MacMansions, and taking the twice-yearly trip to Barbados plus monthly plane trips to see family.

I believe that right-to-work abuses can include:
1) cutting hours back in slow times
2) hiring more people for the holidays rather than asking current employees to step up
3) pulling payroll from stores doing well to help keep stores in other regions who are not doing well.

However, these cutting measures are based on economic realities. What would you do with employees standing around when there's no customers, truck merch and backstock has been pulled to the floor, and the store is clean? What do you do with employees who are not able to commit more hours because of another job or caretaker responsibilities? What about having to close the least-performing stores because you didn't invest the money in payroll to keep people interested in working there and now have to pay unemployment insurance? Closing a store is expensive. But that's what we have to do. The last two months before Thanksgiving has SUCKED. I HATE SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER because it's so damn slow.

Please advise, because I'm about to see about getting into something else to do (don't know what that is, and haven't been able to answer that question in 28 years).

a person in CA making $2,700/mo is much worse off than someone in Texas making $2,000.

 

[Foxrac]

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

Not really, the right to work law will not going help Michigan and Detroit.

but... you are correct about worsen the working condition, no benefits and lowering wage.

There is really no economic evidence showing “right-to-work” laws leading to more jobs or better outcomes for workers. This is seen plainly in analysis looking at the impact of such laws in Oklahoma, the only other state to adopt a right-to-work law in the past 25 years prior to Indiana doing so in 2011 and Michigan’s current legislative move. In fact, economists Sylvia Allegretto and Gordon Lafer of the University of California, Berkeley and University of Oregon, respectively, show that since Oklahoma’s law passed in 2001, manufacturing employment and business relocations to the state actually reversed their “pre-right-to-work” increases and began to fall—and this at a time when Oklahoma’s extractive industry economies were booming. To the contrary, these researchers show that right-to-work laws have failed to increase employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted them.

Michigan Governor Falsely Claims Anti-Union Law Would Bring 'More And Better Jobs' To His State | ThinkProgress

After right to work failed to help with growth so the states used incentives to attract the businesses, however the incentives cost the taxpayer's money and have no relation to right to work law.

Michigan will going lose the factories and employees because unions will relocate the workplaces to non-right to work states, so left Michigan with economy disadvantage.

 

[Reba]

Many of the former Michigan and Ohio workers now live and work in the *gasp* right-to-work state of South Carolina. Many of them are our neighbors and friends.

TCS was born and raised in Lansing, MI. After joining the Navy as a teen he has never wanted to move back. His family still live in MI and expect "the state" and "government" to take care of everything. His late dad retired as a life-long employee of the automotive industry in Lansing (union worker). His mom, sister, and brother-in-law retired from state jobs.

If the union bosses lose their income from dues, and hence, their political influence, whatever will they do? Boo-hoo, waa-waa!

 

[Reba]

Does it occur to anyone that perhaps union workers were being paid too much in relation to the work they were doing? Also, that their hourly wages had to compensate for the dues that were taken out of every paycheck? That not all the dues money went to support workers but to pay for union boss salaries and political influence?

America nows has other laws and safety regulations in place that were once issues covered by only the unions.

If the unions want to stay viable, they need to adapt to the changing times and conditions.

It doesn't help their cause to be viewed as violent, forceful thugs.

 

[Foxrac]

Having a union representation without pay dues is theft (in my opinion) and it is compare to anyone isn't pay monthly bill for Directv service, not pay loan back to creditors and take food out from grocery without pay at register.

The union due isn't limited to political, so it include cost of representation, health insurance, pension, wage, vacation, etc and it is based on agreement from majority of workers. Who formed the union? the workers, of course. If you don't agree with them so quit the job and find a nonunion jobs. They used political to protect the worker's rights and worker's interest.

I have no sympathy for non-union workers who are intimidated by union workers at unionized workplaces because non-union workers took advantage of union representation without pay due. If you aren't belong to union so find a job at nonunion workplaces is appreciate.

 

[Reba]

Having a union representation without pay dues is theft (in my opinion) and it is compare to anyone isn't pay monthly bill for Directv service, not pay loan back to creditors and take food out from grocery without pay at register.

At the time that they did their jobs, the union leaders were paid. That's done. In the future, they can bill for their services on an as needed basis. Their fees can be included in the negotiations, for payment by the business owners. They don't need to be guaranteed cushy lifetime careers.

The union due isn't limited to political, so it include cost of representation, health insurance, pension, wage, vacation, etc and it is based on agreement from majority of workers. Who formed the union? the workers, of course. If you don't agree with them so quit the job and find a nonunion jobs. They used political to protect the worker's rights and worker's interest.

That's the problem. The unions have taken control in too many industries and services. There are no non-union job options in those areas.

I have no sympathy for non-union workers who are intimidated by union workers at unionized workplaces because non-union workers took advantage of union representation without pay due. If you aren't belong to union so find a job at nonunion workplaces is appreciate.

So, do you support union goons threatening and using violence?

 

[diehardbiker]

I have known somebody that works in union, he was one of lousy employees. Mind you, he was fired 7 times and was forced to rehire by union stewardess.

That is one of reason why I am against union, I have witness unionized workers were far worse than non-union workers, reason? Job security! Unions tend to guarantee job security regardless how lousy they are.

Thumbs down unions

Whats more, unions are actually makes the union boss richer just like CEO.

Again, thumbs down unions

thumbs up to right-to-work!

Right-to-work is all about quality of workmanship and competitions. So meaning, if your not union, your better doing good job or your terminated, which result better products for customers.

 

[TXgolfer]

At the time that they did their jobs, the union leaders were paid. That's done. In the future, they can bill for their services on an as needed basis. Their fees can be included in the negotiations, for payment by the business owners. They don't need to be guaranteed cushy lifetime careers.


That's the problem. The unions have taken control in too many industries and services. There are no non-union job options in those areas.


So, do you support union goons threatening and using violence?

SMH......Sadly there are people out there that think like that.

 

[Foxrac]

At the time that they did their jobs, the union leaders were paid. That's done. In the future, they can bill for their services on an as needed basis. Their fees can be included in the negotiations, for payment by the business owners. They don't need to be guaranteed cushy lifetime careers.

That's the problem. The unions have taken control in too many industries and services. There are no non-union job options in those areas.

There are far more nonunion workplaces than union workplaces, also only less than 15% of workers are union members. There are many options to find a job in nonunion workplaces. Majority of workers agreed to have an union representation via election and the union don't create the unionized workplaces, so only workers have to form and conduct the election to unionize.

So, do you support union goons threatening and using violence?

I'm not going answer your question because it is sensitive. There is consequence for nonunion workers to being represented by union without pay dues, especially in states with right to work law.

 

[TXgolfer]

I have known somebody that works in union, he was one of lousy employees. Mind you, he was fired 7 times and was forced to rehire by union stewardess.

That is one of reason why I am against union, I have witness unionized workers were far worse than non-union workers, reason? Job security! Unions tend to guarantee job security regardless how lousy they are.

Thumbs down unions

Whats more, unions are actually makes the union boss richer just like CEO.

Again, thumbs down unions

thumbs up to right-to-work!

Right-to-work is all about quality of workmanship and competitions. So meaning, if your not union, your better doing good job or your terminated, which result better products for customers.

That is what unions do, they force companies to hire,overpay and retain unqualified and incompetent workers. It is really unfair to the people who are qualified.

It is amazing how some view the "American Dream" as living like Archie Bunker.

 

[TXgolfer]

Many of the former Michigan and Ohio workers now live and work in the *gasp* right-to-work state of South Carolina. Many of them are our neighbors and friends.

TCS was born and raised in Lansing, MI. After joining the Navy as a teen he has never wanted to move back. His family still live in MI and expect "the state" and "government" to take care of everything. His late dad retired as a life-long employee of the automotive industry in Lansing (union worker). His mom, sister, and brother-in-law retired from state jobs.

If the union bosses lose their income from dues, and hence, their political influence, whatever will they do? Boo-hoo, waa-waa!

It is sad what has happened in Lansing and Detroit. Unions have destroyed those towns. The home values there are amazing. Nice homes boarded up because they won't sell. And it gets worse, houses are so low one could easily buy, remodel and sit on them for 5 years and still not lose money. Except....It is almost impossible to get permits without a union contractor. They shoot themselves in the foot at every turn, it's insane.

 

[Foxrac]

I have known somebody that works in union, he was one of lousy employees. Mind you, he was fired 7 times and was forced to rehire by union stewardess.

That is one of reason why I am against union, I have witness unionized workers were far worse than non-union workers, reason? Job security! Unions tend to guarantee job security regardless how lousy they are.

Thumbs down unions

Whats more, unions are actually makes the union boss richer just like CEO.

Again, thumbs down unions

thumbs up to right-to-work!

Right-to-work is all about quality of workmanship and competitions. So meaning, if your not union, your better doing good job or your terminated, which result better products for customers.

There are plenty of lousy and lazy workers at nonunion workplaces, especially Walmart and you think that bosses will care about them - not really, it is about their favoritism.

The problem that you described isn't occur in all unions, so only happened in some unions and those problem is obviously result in expulsion from union.

Not really, that's not what right to work law means. In state with right to work law, you are still represented by unions, regardless on status of dues and it doesn't remove the union from workplace. The right to work law isn't going help at all.

 

[diehardbiker]

Sure, but they won't last long because paper is going to show up in executive level, and going to fire those management in favor of lousy employees as after they would questioning management for poor performance. Have it happened? Yes, I have already witness in my working life and they usually don't happen fast but until executive finds a person that is qualified for replacing managers then the ball gets rolling. But with unions, executives can't do much just because it is contract work and thats big difference.

There are plenty of lousy and lazy workers at nonunion workplaces, especially Walmart and you think that bosses will care about them - not really, it is about their favoritism.

The problem that you described isn't occur in all unions, so only happened in some unions and those problem is obviously result in expulsion from union.

Not really, that's not what right to work law means. In state with right to work law, you are still represented by unions, regardless on status of dues and it doesn't remove the union from workplace. The right to work law isn't going help at all.

 

[Reba]

It is sad what has happened in Lansing and Detroit. Unions have destroyed those towns. The home values there are amazing. Nice homes boarded up because they won't sell. And it gets worse, houses are so low one could easily buy, remodel and sit on them for 5 years and still not lose money. Except....It is almost impossible to get permits without a union contractor. They shoot themselves in the foot at every turn, it's insane.

Yes, it's happening in the neighborhoods where TCS's family lives. Empty and devalued houses on their street.

 

[caz12]

i not really got a right to comment on american union rules,but i was grateful to be in a union when i went to work....
we did have time when unions could bring down goverments and did,we also had a time under thatcher goverments when coal miners were fighting to keep mines open,we saw police lines awful fights.the union lost coal mines closed and many many men over the country lost jobs the towns became sad dead towns,they only ones working were doctors with waiting rooms of depressed men who saw no future,and sadly were right...just outsiders observation.

 

[Grummer]

Because they have to up their skills and find better paying jobs or LEARN to live within their means. Don't forget that if a union member makes better money per hour after everything has been deducted, including dues, then that employee HAS to be more expensive than another employee in a non-union environment, which would translate to higher product costs. Why would you rather make $30 an hour with, say $5 an hour going to dues (I know nothing about dues, so I'm just going by the seat of my pants) than make $28 in a non-union environment? I would think that the purpose of a union is not only better work conditions, but also more money.

Just look at California. The cost of living is much higher there than in Texas, and I have to pay THEIR prices. The cost of a jacket relative to a CA resident's salary is lower than in Texas. Suppose you have this.

Texas:
Make $2000 a month
Expenses are $1350 a month
You have $650 to play with
A $300 jacket is about 46% of discretionary income (income after bills are paid)

California:
Make $2700 doing the SAME thing there (we have stores there)
Expenses are probably $1800-1900 a month
Even at $1900 a month, you still have $800 left
That same jacket would take up 37% of your discretionary income

That is what I don't like.

Interesting that unions have not been able gain a foothold in retail because of the frustration factor in organizing these employees. The issue is the high turn-over nature of retail and the sensitive nature of the products they sell (toilet paper, soap, food, the basics EVERYONE needs for daily living). Quite frankly, unions are wasting their time with retail because it is NOT A TRADE. You just hang out all day in a building talking to people all day and moving things around. Sure, you help a customer find what they're looking for and help them avoid costly buying mistakes, but THAT'S ALL. Customers are supposed to do THEIR reseach and due diligence in such decisions in the first place. If they screw up, that is their problem, not mine. I'd rather be doing something USEFUL, like something that contributes to the existence of infrastructure or making something that someone can use. Calling retail a trade is a joke to me. It's like, "Wait a minute, retail is a trade? But that's a job for kids to learn job responsibility, managing their income, develop basic work and people skills, and then MOVE ON to a real job." Oh, wait a minute. I AM a retail worker. And I AM nearing 50... Just so you know I'm not calling the kettle black. I'm aware of that. I work in that environment, so I have a good grasp of the kind of people who love retail. I can't stand it, but I got sucked into it and trapped, and it's what I know how to do well. I hate it, but I'm good at it. Just like Dad was in the oil patch, but hated it. For 52 years...

So please tell me, union members, why is it to my advantage to be a union member if I am in a trade subject to "right-to-work abuses?" I will admit that we do not even make living wages. The running joke among managers is that "How many roommates you have depends on where you are in your 'little career.' " A supervisor has 2 roommates, an assistant manager has 1 roommate, and it would be a store manager who would be the first to be able to make it relatively comfortably on one's own. Not just barely making it, but doing WELL compared to people driving new cars, "owning" MacMansions, and taking the twice-yearly trip to Barbados plus monthly plane trips to see family.

I believe that right-to-work abuses can include:
1) cutting hours back in slow times
2) hiring more people for the holidays rather than asking current employees to step up
3) pulling payroll from stores doing well to help keep stores in other regions who are not doing well.

However, these cutting measures are based on economic realities. What would you do with employees standing around when there's no customers, truck merch and backstock has been pulled to the floor, and the store is clean? What do you do with employees who are not able to commit more hours because of another job or caretaker responsibilities? What about having to close the least-performing stores because you didn't invest the money in payroll to keep people interested in working there and now have to pay unemployment insurance? Closing a store is expensive. But that's what we have to do. The last two months before Thanksgiving has SUCKED. I HATE SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER because it's so damn slow.

Please advise, because I'm about to see about getting into something else to do (don't know what that is, and haven't been able to answer that question in 28 years).

ah, theres more to it


think about it, its the shrinking access to raw materials, the greed, and the politics, its designed to make us 'forget' , that is, who's really in power, and the reality of which, ;' THERE IS NO MORE JOBS...WHILE there is TOO MANY PEOPLE......