"Right to Work (for less)" States

C

Cypress

Well-known member
In right to work states, employees in union shops are allowed to forgo making union dues payments.

Federal law already requires that no one has to join a union. But, in union states, one who accepts employment, wages and benefits that were negotiated by unions, they have to at least pay dues to the union -- to compensate them for their time and effort in achieving those wage and benefit contracts.

Why should someone get a free ride in a "right to work" state? Why should they take advantage of a wage and benefit contract (which is generally better, than an individual could have negotiated on their own) that a union spent time and money negotiating, without paying dues like everyone else did? In addition, the Union is legally required to defend an employee who is illegally fired, even if that employee chose not to pay union dues.

Or, as AFl-CIO states:

“A ‘right to work’ law would allow nonmember workers to get all the benefits of union membership and pay nothing, while forcing unions and their members to foot the bill for those not willing to pay their share” (“RTW States Are Rest.”) This argument appeals to one’s common sense: It does not seem fair to require unions to provide benefits for free to nonpaying member or “free riders.”
Click to expand...
 
It's a way to further phase out unions. There are plenty of idiots who will forego paying the dues, collect the higher, union-negotiated wages, and think they're "getting away with" something. And then, ten years down the road when they are working for minimum wage and there is no union, they will be just as surprised as shit.

Because there are really people that stupid out there. And they are easy prey for big business and their political allies. It's sad really.
 
Hmmm... In this state, "Right To Work" pretty much means that you can quit without notice and the company can fire you without cause.

You still have to pay dues regardless of whether you are part of the union.
 
Darla said:
It's a way to further phase out unions. There are plenty of idiots who will forego paying the dues, collect the higher, union-negotiated wages, and think they're "getting away with" something. And then, ten years down the road when they are working for minimum wage and there is no union, they will be just as surprised as shit.

Because there are really people that stupid out there. And they are easy prey for big business and their political allies. It's sad really.
Click to expand...



It's a way to further phase out unions.


DING DING DING!

We have a winner!
 
Damocles said:
Hmmm... In this state, "Right To Work" pretty much means that you can quit without notice and the company can fire you without cause.

You still have to pay dues regardless of whether you are part of the union.
Click to expand...

No, "right to work" laws, allow employees to enjoy all the wages and benefits negotiated by the union, without having to pay union dues.

These non-dues paying guys/gals are free-loaders, in effect. :D
 
Cypress said:
No, "right to work" laws, allow employees to enjoy all the wages and benefits negotiated by the union, without having to pay union dues.

These non-dues paying guys/gals are free-loaders, in effect. :D
Click to expand...
As I said, here it means that you can choose not to join, still have to pay the dues and companies are protected if they fire you with no cause.

It clearly means different things in different places.

They call those laws, "Right to Work" laws, though they are quite different than what you describe here.
 
well, here in MN, i worked in a wherehouse for about 5 years... i had to join the union and pay dues, wasnt an option.

the only thing they did for me was screw me... they had a top wage set, after i reaced it i could no longer get a pay raise unless a new deal was worked out... so i worked there for about a year before i said to hell with this.

it relly sucks when your boss tells you he would like to give you a raise but the union contract dosnt allow the company too. no can they hire a new employee without em joining the union.
 
Cypress said:
In right to work states, employees in union shops are allowed to forgo making union dues payments.

Federal law already requires that no one has to join a union. But, in union states, one who accepts employment, wages and benefits that were negotiated by unions, they have to at least pay dues to the union -- to compensate them for their time and effort in achieving those wage and benefit contracts.

Why should someone get a free ride in a "right to work" state? Why should they take advantage of a wage and benefit contract (which is generally better, than an individual could have negotiated on their own) that a union spent time and money negotiating, without paying dues like everyone else did? In addition, the Union is legally required to defend an employee who is illegally fired, even if that employee chose not to pay union dues.

Or, as AFl-CIO states:
Click to expand...

But the union is NOT paying benefits, the company is, they only negotiated them. The company chooses to pay the same rates for non-unionized workers because otherwise they would join the union.

Right to work laws are very important because a majority has no right to restrict a minority in what they can do legally. If a minority voted not to strike and to work instead, they should have the right to work.

Unions have declined for decades and we have seen nothing but our lifestyle get better and better, except of course with government growth and taxes - which are what unions fight for anyway. Good riddance, we have no unions in the high-tech sector and we are doing very well and Americans have certainly benefitted with lower prices from manufactured goods overseas which allows more disposable income to be spent on service industries like massage therapy, gyms and so on.
 
Cypress said:
No, "right to work" laws, allow employees to enjoy all the wages and benefits negotiated by the union, without having to pay union dues.

These non-dues paying guys/gals are free-loaders, in effect. :D
Click to expand...

Umm there is a lot more to it than that, in the right to work states I have lived in.

They seem to favor employers more than employees.
 
Cypress said:
No, "right to work" laws, allow employees to enjoy all the wages and benefits negotiated by the union, without having to pay union dues.

These non-dues paying guys/gals are free-loaders, in effect. :D
Click to expand...

in my experince its just the oppisite

the people not paying dues are probably working harder, and being more productive, rather then getting the good ole line " its in the union contract"
 
bob said:
well, here in MN, i worked in a wherehouse for about 5 years... i had to join the union and pay dues, wasnt an option.

the only thing they did for me was screw me... they had a top wage set, after i reaced it i could no longer get a pay raise unless a new deal was worked out... so i worked there for about a year before i said to hell with this.

it relly sucks when your boss tells you he would like to give you a raise but the union contract dosnt allow the company too. no can they hire a new employee without em joining the union.
Click to expand...

Good point. Not only that but unions protect jobs by seniority rather than ability. Which means if you have some crotchety old asshole that works there that is lazy and a jerk, he can never get laid off until all the junior people with less experience have been laid off first.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm there is a lot more to it than that, in the right to work states I have lived in.

They seem to favor employers more than employees.
Click to expand...

It favors both really. If an employee wants to work and not strike then obviously he is happier and of course the employer is happier.
Majorities have no right to restrict the rights of minorities, especially on something so vital as working for a living.
 
Umm the right to work laws I have seen do not only contain rules about unions, but keep it on that subject if you want. simple souloutions for simple minds.
 
Damocles said:
Hmmm... In this state, "Right To Work" pretty much means that you can quit without notice and the company can fire you without cause.

You still have to pay dues regardless of whether you are part of the union.
Click to expand...


Damo - What you are describing is "employment-at-will" which is different from "right to work." Employment-at-will is the legal baseline rule that all employment contracts, unless otherwise stated, are terminable at the will of either party without cause. This is the baseline legal rule in all states except Montana IIRC.
 
TheDanold said:
It favors both really. If an employee wants to work and not strike then obviously he is happier and of course the employer is happier.
Majorities have no right to restrict the rights of minorities, especially on something so vital as working for a living.
Click to expand...

Dano - There is a simple solution to the problem that arises if a person is employed at a business with a unionized work force but doesn't want to be a part of the union. He can get a different job.
 
Dungheap said:
Damo - What you are describing is "employment-at-will" which is different from "right to work." Employment-at-will is the legal baseline rule that all employment contracts, unless otherwise stated, are terminable at the will of either party without cause. This is the baseline legal rule in all states except Montana IIRC.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. At will.... Okay. Moving on.

I couldn't care less. All I worried about when the Union was coming in was my ability to deny them funds for political donations. I found out that you have a right to take that portion out of your dues.

But then, amazingly, we voted them down! I was stunned, the place I work at is at least 80% Democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top