- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Topic
-
-
Replies
-
I worked in right to work states, and I also worked in union shops. So my view comes from my experiences. Each person has their views based on experience or which propaganda they choose to believe.
In union shops, I watched lazy good for nothing people do very little but sit on their seniority. Each year we got the small raise negotiated by the union. And each year I paid too much of my money in dues, to a union that seemed to focus on only making money for the union.
In non-union shops, I saw larger raises and higher pay, based entirely on my ability to perform the job. I was not held back by some union contract that protected the lazy. If people did not perform, they were not employed. I saw the same in right to work states.
Don’t get me wrong. I think we all owe a great deal to the formation of unions. Thanks to unions, we all have 40 hour work weeks, vacation days, and in many cases health benefits. The unions went to battle for all of us….when they were first formed. But….too many unions became a business in their own. Too many stopped caring about the workers and cared about the business of the union first, forgetting that the members are the union. Too many unions have caused businesses to close, or move to another state, which put too many workers out of work.
I am pro GOOD union, anti union for the sake of being union. I am pro right to work because I have seen too many lazy people hurt businesses and be protected by the union.
This bill gives the worker the right to apply for a job without being forced to join a union.
Freedom to choose.
If the union is good, I would assume they would join. If union isn’t so good, then the worker can choose not to join.
It’s about freedom to work without being forced into an union.
No one is attacking unions, it’s about the choice and freedom to join a union.The Unions issue with right to work is that the new employee coming in may choose to take all his scale pay on the check, not pay dues, and not have the offered insurance. The union doesn’t get there cut off the top of said employees paycheck. The AFL-CIO plays this off with fire and brimstone tactics, saying no one will get raises, benefits taken away, blah blah blah. I am a firm believer that your pay should be based on job performance. A union only protects those who cannot do a job, and those who do a job poorly.
I agree with Jon, Unions had their place back in the 30s and 40s as they were to protect the employees. Now days the union is a business. How many union workers are still paying dues but have been riding the bench because the union they pay dues too also protects some idiot who is incapable of performing a task? The answer is many.
I’ve never worked in a union, never had a job where I got paid union scale, and don’t plan on it ever happening. I have good health insurance coverage, I have multiple retirement accounts, and most importantly I have two jobs (one of which I am the CEO, foreman, technician, and clean up boy) where I feel I have succeeded.
I am disgusted with some of the anti right to work commercials. The lies and false statements border on ridiculous.
I saw one that said “Workers will lose their jobs and get less pay. My boss will lose good employees…”
HUH???
Right to work gives people the option to join a union or not. It makes it illegal for people to be forced to join a union and pay union dues. Of course the unions are against this because this is their income. They don’t care about the workers right to choose. They care about the union getting it’s money.
Simply put. If you have a job and feel that the pay is unfair and the benefits are unfair, and hours are unfair….enough to pay someone else to negotiate for you…then form a union. If your employer is a slave-driver and you will benefit by organizing…you have the RIGHT to form a union and organize. No one is taking that away.
But what this law says, is, if you don’t feel that you have a need to join a union to be treated fairly by your employer, and feel that you don’t need someone to stand up for you, that you can negotiate for yourself, you can choose to not be part of a union. This law gives you that right.
While I understand everyone has a right to their opinion and fights for what they think is fair.. who is working while all this protesting is going on?
The same thing happens in non-union businesses as far as dead-weight employees. I have seen it many times. Management doesn’t have the guts to eliminate that dead-weight.
maddog wrote:This bill gives the worker the right to apply for a job without being forced to join a union.
Freedom to choose.
If the union is good, I would assume they would join. If union isn’t so good, then the worker can choose not to join.The problem I see with this is that a lot of workers won’t bother to educate themselves about what a good union would do for them. I could see a lot of people just opting for the extra money in their paycheck rather than investigating the longer-term benefits that a good union could offer them. Since a union’s effectiveness is so closely related to its membership, this would weaken its ability to help its members.
What about giving employees the ability to opt-out of paying union dues, but only after they take a class that provides some education on what that particular union offers them (e.g how it works, services it provides, and some historical examples of how it has helped other employees)?
And from another perspective… how ’bout allowing the Union to NOT have to spend their money to represent a non-contributor (ie: scab), when that person has an issue? Thats one of the biggest issues I have with “right to work” states. The Union is forced, by US Labor Law, to “actively and enthusiastically represent” all members of the Bargaining Unit, whether they pay dues or not. Don’t wanna pay dues? Fine. But, Don’t come for support from the Union when an insurance claim doesn’t get paid properly, when your Supervisor “picks” on you, when your Overtime pay is wrong, etc…, etc… in a Union I used to belong to, 70-80% of the Unions office staff’s time was spent helping with Medical bills not being paid properly, OR, helping future retirees with pension planning and retirement benefits. MANY times non-contributors came with their hand out wanting the same help that Paying Union Members received…. and by law, we WERE FORCED to help them the same as paying members. If you didn’t… here came the threatened lawsuits, etc… Don’t wanna contribute?? Don’t expect Help when ya need it…
From the State Journal today (3-1-2015) in the Opinion section, column by Mitch Henck says that a US supreme court case of 1962 of retail Clerks vs Lion Dry Goods that bargaining is “not limited to labor organizations which are entitled to recognition as exclusive bargaining agents of employees”
This means unions could choose to represent members only if they wanted. They don’t want that because by giving up the power to act as the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees in that closed shop, the union would give up the power to protect seniority. The union always wants to make sure the younger workers get fired first.. So much for the union mantra, “An injury to one is an injury to all.”
If unions don’t want to represent free-loaders in labor disputes, they don’t have to.
Maddog,
Quote:If unions don’t want to represent free-loaders in labor disputes, they don’t have to.I’m not sure I agree with your comment.
I read what Henck wrote about the case, and then I found the actual document. It doesn’t exactly grant the unions the right to choose who they want to represent, IMHO. Better to look at the facts. Ultimately though, it’s probably court fodder for the future.
This is what the two parties agreed to in their Statement of Understanding:
Quote:The Statement contained such key points of settlement as the unions’ acknowledgment that they were not then entitled to recognition as exclusive representatives, and would not seek such recognition unless and until certified as so entitled in single store unit elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, and Lasalle’s agreement to reinstate striking employees without discrimination.Here is another reference to that case from another US district court ruling:
Quote:“in light of its legislative history, congressional
intent, and underlying policies,” namely, a desire to “to expand,
not limit, the availability of forums for the enforcement of
contracts made by labor organizations.”circletrack wrote:While I understand everyone has a right to their opinion and fights for what they think is fair.. who is working while all this protesting is going on?I wondered the same thing when they showed all the people up there protesting.
These people are mad at Scooter now, wait until he becomes POTUS :whistle: :laugh: :laugh:
So while watching the news tonight, they showed a clip from the UAW representative stating his case to the legislatures. I find it quite interesting
His first statement (on this clip) he stated that “This right to work law will end any chance of GM moving back to Janesville”
Umm, excuse me but first, when did the union EVER have any say in where a business opens or doesn’t open? You represent the workers. You DO NOT decide anything for the company.
And even if the UAW actually had any say…where the fuck were you when they closed the GM plant? If you cared so much about the workers, and had control over this plant being open or not, why did you ALLOW it to close?
And while I am at it, one of the companies that I worked for in Saint Paul, closed it’s doors and moved to South Dakota, largely BECAUSE of the damn union. If unions had any control over a company being opened or closed, and cared one tiny bit about the people it is supposed to protect, then so many companies wouldn’t close and relocate to get rid of union interference
Then he also made the comment about listening “to the constituents” ….Umm (again) last I heard/read over 60% of those “constituents” back the right to work legislation.
Stop with the lies and just state the facts. The unions are worried about getting their pay. I would respect them more if they would be honest
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.