Right to work laws

Beefy said:
No, I want to prevent them from being coerced into forcing all of their labor force to join an organization with or without their will in order to sell their product to GM.
Click to expand...

No one has a right to a job. If GM says you have to be in a union then that is their right.
 
Beefy said:
Lame. And I'M the one turning into uscitizen??

People should have the right to the free exchange of their services for money.
Click to expand...

How does a closed shop violate the free exchange of services? Right to work laws violate it, not closed shops. You are arguing that the state should restrict the services unions offer and the contractual agreements they may make.
 
It wouldn't actually be as much of a big deal if the federal government didn't specifically require unions to represent all workers, union workers. As it is, a closed shop or agency shop is the only kind of shop that makes sense for a union. If a state has right to work laws, then unions are forced to represent them whether or not they get dues for doing so.
 
RStringfield said:
How does a closed shop violate the free exchange of services? Right to work laws violate it, not closed shops. You are arguing that the state should restrict the services unions offer and the contractual agreements they may make.
Click to expand...

No one believes me anymore unless you're supporting me.

I'm going to go back to clone-RS mode for a while.
 
Watermark said:
It wouldn't actually be as much of a big deal if the federal government didn't specifically require unions to represent all workers, union workers. As it is, a closed shop or agency shop is the only kind of shop that makes sense for a union. If a state has right to work laws, then unions are forced to represent them whether or not they get dues for doing so.
Click to expand...
And I agree with you there WM. If you choose not to join the union then you should get NO BENEFIT from wage increases and benefits obtained on behalf of their members. The Federal government has NO RIGHT to force unions to represent those people that choose NOT to join their unions.
 
Socrtease said:
I support the right of anyone to join a union and support the right of people to NOT be forced to join the union. Imagine if for whatever reason, to work someplace you had to be a member of the republican party and you could not work there without joining the republican party. Those who oppose right to work laws would HOWL at the moon about workers being forced to join the republican party. But when forced to not only join what is traditionally an arm of the Democratic party but then be FORCED to pay dues that may go to politicians or causes that the worker does not support, its only the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

If they don't want to pay the union dues, then they should probably not accept the compensation and benefits package that the union spent time and money negotiating.

They should try to negotiate their own compensation and benefits package. Which, in all likelyhood, won't be as good as union wages and benefits.
 
Cypress said:
If they don't want to pay the union dues, then they should probably not accept the compensation and benefits package that the union spent time and money negotiating.

They should try to negotiate their own compensation and benefits package. Which, in all likelyhood, won't be as good as union wages and benefits.
Click to expand...

Cypress, please skip to the end of the thread. We've already discussed this. I'm sure you're going to go down every post, responding individually and redundantly, and then come to the end of the thread, where you realize that you've just wasted your time.
 
Superfreak said:
If you are talking about the right to work law that prohibits unions from forcing people to join, then I am all for that law.
Click to expand...

I am for a law that prohibits employers from forcing people to work for their wages.

Nobody is forced to join the union anymore than they are forced to come to work. They choose to do it in exchange for the wages or they refuse the job.
 
RStringfield said:
I am for a law that prohibits employers from forcing people to work for their wages.

Nobody is forced to join the union anymore than they are forced to come to work. They choose to do it in exchange for the wages or they refuse the job.
Click to expand...

so then you are fine if every company in the US said they would no longer hire anyone that was a member of a union?

Because it is the same damn thing in reverse.
 
Superfreak said:
so then you are fine if every company in the US said they would no longer hire anyone that was a member of a union?

Because it is the same damn thing in reverse.
Click to expand...

SF, you don't even understand the issue, or the law.

No one can be forced to join a union. Everyone has the inherent right, under federal law, to not join a union.

In many states, if one chooses to accept an employment and benefits package that a union spent their time and money negotiating, the employee may well have to pay dues to the union in recognition of the fact that their wages and benefits package was something that was attained for on their behalf by the union. And the union still has to represent them, if they are illegally fired or if there is any greviance related to their employment.

Do you think the union should work for free on behalf of those who accept the compensation package the union worked and fought for, and who are required to represent them if there's an issue or grievance related to their job?
 
Cypress said:
SF, you don't even understand the issue, or the law.

No one can be forced to join a union. Everyone has the inherent right, under federal law, to not join a union.

In many states, if one chooses to accept an employment and benefits package that a union spent their time and money negotiating, the employee may well have to pay dues to the union in recognition of the fact that their wages and benefits package was something that was attained for on their behalf by the union. And the union still has to represent them, if they are illegally fired or if there is any greviance related to their employment.

Do you think the union should work for free on behalf of those who accept the compensation package the union worked and fought for, and who are required to represent them if there's an issue or grievance related to their job?
Click to expand...
The Taft-Hartley Act
Prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by Congress over President Harry S. Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a "closed shop," in which employees at unionized workplaces are required to be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlaws the "closed shop." The Act, however, permits employers and unions to operate under a "union shop" rule, which requires all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under "union shop" rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.

A similar arrangement to the “union shop” is the “agency shop,” under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top