Forum Post: Why do Republicans, like Scott Walker want the state to be involved in private business contracts?
Posted 12 years ago on June 7, 2012, 8:06 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8342)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Republicans keep pushing this “right to work” agenda which is nothing more than the government telling people what kind of things they can put in their own private contracts, involving private money, and the government bureaucrats should keep their hands out of it, but for some reason the Republicans feel that the corporations need extra protection. Now they couch it in “right to work” as if the union was forcing people to join, but isn’t it the Republicans that point out that labor laws are unneeded, for instance if you want contraception covered in your health care you can just work for someone else aren’t they always saying you can quit if you don’t like the wages/conditions/ your boss sleeping with your wife as a condition of empolyment, but woe wait a minute joining a union that’s going too far? Why don’t they just point out that you can work some where else if you don’t want to join the union and work at a union shop. That seems to be in keeping with their “you can always quit" answer to all labor laws, except “right to work” which just helps the 1%, so do we know which party to hate or are we still confused people?
“A "right-to-work" law is a statute 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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Update:
New thought:
Right to Work at a Reasonable Wage!
they own private businesses
"right to work" is misnomer. "Right to workers" is closer
Access to wage slaves is even closer.
they want to squezze all they can, leave just enough "hope" to keep people working...
Why do Republicans, like Scott Walker want the state to be involved in private business contracts?
because fred koch's spawn told them to
Now you know they been doing this before fred squrited in the pond, but I get what you mean, there has always been and will always be, toadies.
Because "Free Markets" like everything else they talk about except for theocratic rule is the opposite of what they really intend. When they say free markets, they mean protecting the right of investors to gamble with your FDIC insured rent money in the bank, they mean suppressing wages to float their shitty business model that couldn't stand on it's own merits. Free Markets means making laws that protect their interests. Free to control the markets in their favor is what they really mean.
You're right, to them government is a tool to control the masses, so they will productive for the capital holders.
money isn't freedom, freedom is
Exactly. Walker wants to privitize Wisconsin utilites so he can get his tax dollars back from us. We're getting desperate with this guy. Why would anyone in their right mind believe anything Walker says? I'm glad Bill Clinton took the time to come to Wisconsin even though the recall was BS. He says we should lower taxes for everyone. So what if he's lying? It's a good lie and I'm totally down with it.
Tax the Rich ala 1950!
90% top rate! Now you're talking!
It worked before! Hey, why don't we try things that worked before for a change? This Supply Side just ain't cut'n it for anyone but the few greed-addled zealots in the 1%, petting their cats and uttering "Ex-cel-lent."
Check out this book Thom Hartman was touting today:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/24/robert-draper-talks-new-book-inside-the-tea-party-house.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
And tell me about being banned by OWS? How long does it last? etc?
if cutting taxes creates jobs and cuttinf them from 90% to 15% hasn't worked aren't we running out of room? are we going to start paying people to be rich now?
How come you don't help me? (spellchecker) Pay the rich, it's our only hope, obviously.
good point we already do, at least everybody that works for a lioving gives about 60% of what they make now, but they always want more don't they? They always say if you just give us a bit more, we'll create them high paying jobs...
Koch headed SOBs! Walker is the toady of the brothers what do you expect?
In order to pay back the money rich folks gave him for his election and re-election. They don't do it for free!
damn wish I'd thought of that, thanks
The key words are "require an employees' membership"
A right to work law allows me to work for a company or in a trade without be required to join a union. In some states in some industries you cannot take the job unless you join the union.
In some states you cannot be a teacher without joining the union.
You pretty much can't work in Hollywood without joining the Screen Actors Guild, AFTRA, Costume Designers Guild,.. Some of these unions are exclusive and hard to get in unless you know someone.
some places you can't cook unless your willing to work for minimum wage
unions are very good at getting work for their members that is true, why should the state invole itself into these contracts? Do you support the state requiring business pay a living wage so people have a "right to work" and still have a right to a decent life?
I am not sure about the living wage requirement. My sister in law has a small store where she sells old time nick nacks. She rarely pulls a paycheck out of the place but loves having the store. She has one employee full time and two part timers who are students. If she had to pay a living was she would probably have to get rid of the two part timers. If she had to do that she would probably close the store.
So maybe I support a living wage for certain positions at certain companies (over 200 employees?) I do not know how that would break down. What I worry about with that is there is nothing preventing companies from picking up and moving to another country like Mexico.
As far as unions go I do not like the idea of them having the power to require membership to work in an industry. They often promote seniority over merit. I also find that they spend most of their money on politics influencing legislation that is often counter productive to our economy and our children.
The largest political campaign spender in America is not a megacorporation, such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or ExxonMobil. It isn’t an industry association, like the American Bankers Association or the National Association of Realtors. If you combine the campaign spending of all those entities it does not match the amount spent by the National Education Association (NEA) or the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
I was a union once that did nothing for me when I worked at Shop Rite. I moved to another store Wegman's where there was no union and the pay was better and the benefits were better. I understand that they were vital during the 30s and 40s before there were child labor laws, a 40 hour week, the FMLA, unemployment insurance, and all the other labor laws. I believe for the most part they have outlived their usefulness, are often ripe with corruption, and sometimes ignore the wishes of their membership.
Perhaps the best thing to do is put the issue up for referendum (a form of direct democracy) and let the people decide if they want to disallow unions from having the power to require employees to be members.
corporation were once need too back when we were buliding America but we should outlaw them now, they are no longer needed....
How do you know that she would have to close the store? Like you say she barely has any business to begin with. Perhaps she would have more customers/trade if more people had money to spend on some frivolous items.
I know because she told me if she did not have that help she would close the store. She cannot afford to pay people more and would have to get rid of at least one and work more hours herself. She already works 16 hours a day 7 days a week keeping the store going. Even more if you count the work she does at home. She is always on the laptop at home doing what is required to keep it going. She is near the shore so she hires another part time worker in the summer. A great job for a student looking for summer work. They do not need the work to live on as they live with their parents. They just need money for gas, clothes, and party supplies.
You would be surprised how many mom and pop stores on "main street" just about break even or make just enough to get by. I never realized this until she opened the store about seven years ago. Forcing these shops to pay a high minimum wage would cause many to close and then we are left with Walmart, Target, Costco, and Home Depot.
can we put up what time I have to be at work too, maybe I only want to work 30 hours for full pay, why should the state get into this at all seems simple enough if you don't want to work union, don't, no body is making you take a certain job, if a company wants to pay more instead of being exclussive then let them work that out at the table, I don't see why the state should prevent people from signing the type of contracts they want to as long as both are fully informed
It is really not about a private contract nor the state getting involved in a contract. When it comes to union elections the state is already involved through the NLRB. In fact when there is any issue that is where the union bosses run, to the NLRB as with Boeing in South Carilina.
The point is should a union be able, through laws of "the state" and enforcement by the NLRB, be allowed to come into a company and have the employees vote on having a union and if 51% of the people say yes, the other 49% have to join. So now neither 49% of the employees nor the company have a say in the matter.
The right to work law says that the other 49% do not have to join a union that they did not vote for. It is really quite simple and fair.
As I said before, on this issue I am in favor of direct democracy. We should leave it up to the people in a state to decide if they want the right to work without joining a union law enacted.
NLRB that's national isn't it? does it say shops have to closed? I don';t think so, no this is exactly the state jumping in on the side of business to help them keep unions week and you know that, this is about getting people the pay they desevere. But yes it reeks of hopricsy because the company that rail against any regulation run to the state to protect them from the big bad workers, who might actually want to be paid what the job is worth.
Again no one is forced tpo work at a union plant, everybody gets a vote, some win some loss what if I'm a shareholder and don't want to give that huge bonus, well the CEO stil;l gets it if I don't win the vote, as Bush said election have conaquences.
In many towns in America the union plant is the only game in town. The folks that prefer not to be represented by the union have a road block to entry.
I say, let the people in a state to decide if they want the right to work without joining a union law enacted.
Right to work workers do not enjoy the higher level of security, pay and benefits that union workers do. Doesn't that matter to you?
Joe I would like to say that it is good to see you have grown in your understanding. There was a time I think when you would have said that the state should not interfere with private employment issues based on principles, but now you see that in the real world policy must actually help people not just support your principles.
In far more situations around the nation people find themselves faced with minimum wage or near minimum wage opportunities especially if they have no degreed, if “right to work” is tied to the right to work for a living wage, I think you are on to something, if the state wants to retain quality people and encourage fair work practices I guess a minimum wage of $15/hr or in most places would offset the natural drag in wages that “right to work” is, so I see your point, people with the right to work for decent wages and not have to join a union, unfortunately no state has a living wage so no state should have these stupid right to work laws.
When I worked at the supermarket 35 years ago I would have chose to opt out of the union if I could have.
When I worked as a busboy many years ago I would of opted for more money if I could of, that is life isn't it growing up and realizing you can't have all you want, I bet you made a lot more bagging than I did bussing at least you had that to comfort you.(or did your union job pay minmum wage, I haven't seen one of those)
It was a minimum wage job. Actually I was a cashier and back in those days you had key in the prices and actually count to give change.
The jobs I had in HS and college made me want to do well in college and chose a career that is in demand.
So now I CAN have all I want in life.
Really you had a union job that paid minimum wage? Could you tell me where, when? I'd love to look into that seems really odd to me, which union did you belong to?
Yes, I had two union jobs in two different supermarkets when I was in HS that paid minimum wage. It was mid 1970s and I think it was like $2.30/hr. It was minimum wage, that I remember because I was excited that my next job (non supermarket) paid more than minimum wage.
I do not remember the name of the union. It was like a "local 1234" number kind of thing. I do remember they took dues out of my check every week, That's about it.
Joe got such a hoot from your response below had to say something, 25 years ago mechanical cash registers, 1987? What are you George Bush Sr.? Amazed by the scanner are we? Now I’m starting to think the whole story was a lie….
Mid 1970s not 1987.
I said "It was mid 1970s and I think it was like $2.30/hr."
I was in HS in the 70s that does not make me 88 years old. 2012-1976 = 36 years ago. George HW Bush was born in 1924.
Yes they had mechanical cash registers in the 1970s. Computerized registers were introduced in the 1970s but they were very expensive mainframe based system that only the big department stores had them.
They still had vacuum tube testers in the hardware stores and penny scales in the pharmacies, we had 8 track tape players, and there were only 13 channels on a TV.
I got an Apple II computer in 1978 and have been programming ever since. I am not "amazed by the scanner" as I program them these days.
My daughter calls my old vinyl records big CDs. In a few years there will be no more CDs or DVDs and her kids will wonder what she is talking about. Books and magazines are on the way out as well. Times change and technology changes even faster.
Get your fun facts straight.
Obviously since I said "It was mid 1970s and I think it was like $2.30/hr." the 25 was a typo. Yes I corrected it. The mid 1970s was in fact 35 years ago.
I probably subconsciously did not want to admit to myself that yes it was that long ago and yes I am that old.
do you remember what state you lived in I'll look it up, this should be fun, I would think it would be big news union workers working for minimum wage, do you know if that happens anywhere today?
LOL
It was in NJ. They didn't even have computerized equipment back then.
We punched paper punch cards in a time clock (Ker-Thunk). The cash registers were mechanical (click, click, click, ding!)
Ah... being sent out to collect shopping carts in the rain. What fond memories.
nice correction you had said 25 years ago up above, now you change it to 35 years ago, maybe if you quit editing your comments for content what a hoot you are, well I guess you showed me..
damn good job of picking your dates though for those who care to know:
http://www.google.com/patents/US4360872
“Right to work” is about helping out the 1% during wages discussions it is also the government getting involved in private contracts. (as the post says)
The reason this is so important to the 1% is that if there are union shops and non-union shops, people will go to the union shops because the quality of work will be much better there.
Business owners will have to be union shops to get business, and people will earn fair wages.
This is not so good for the people who own things and want to keep as much of the money for themselves as they can.
People need to see union benefits first hand otherwise they buy into the talking points of their beloved corporate whore talking heads. The union with the corporation I work with is awesome. I see plenty of benefits, although the corporation is always trying to find loopholes so they don't have to pay people benefits... even though they are one of the top media companies in the world with massive profit levels... and the station I work with is number 1 in our market. Lately those anti-employee corporate policies have found ways around our union contracts. The new ploy - stop hiring full time and hire part time. Then you don't have to pay for benefits. Part time work is going to be the wave of the future.
Thanks for stopping by TM,you're on to something about "part time" I've seen first hand how empolyers can use "hours" to get things from emplyees that most folks would say they shouldn't be able too, off hours work, work at their home, sex, everything is possible when you hold the sch. power and rent needs paying.
A lot of people are just brainwashed about unions, especially private sector unions. Private sectors unions are amazing. People working at Wal-Marts are told all the time to report any talks of unions. At least at the one I worked at when I was in my teens. I worked at a Wal-Mart for 9 months before I finally quit because Wal-Mart sucks so bad. Also around the time I decided to boycott Wal-Marts and stores like it. The one I worked at stole business from 2 locally owned groceries stores that eventually closed down. Fuck Wal-Mart. All those employees could be making way more money with better benefits, yet most of them think unions will make them lose money.
I'm hoping the union at my current job sees the corps plan of part time and do something about it. We're not a place that can hire people without experience and knowledge. And experienced people with knowledge need full time jobs. Like I said, part time will be the waive of the future. Make everyone desperate and scared to lose their jobs, then make the jobs part time. Cut back on benefits and hourly wages, then the CEO pockets more cash to buy more mansions and yachts.
There was a time when overtime was an issue, too much of it for skilled workers, mine was limited by law and they pushed the limit. Back then the cost of health care and other benneifits, now they've cut back on those, offer fewer to part time and avoid overtime pay rates sometimes even paying lower to part time. The airlines need skilled part timers so they call them resevere and their lives are tough being on call all the time.
They also like using temp companies as then they have no overhead and can keep their overall labor cost down by continuously recycling temps.
Yes we agree on this. Unions are what puts the 1%, and the workers on a more even playing field when it comes time to negotiate a new contract. Worker representation (unions) is an absolute imperative if the wealth diparity in this country is ever going to be brought down to less than the banana-like republic times of today.
"RTW"? Can you say Trojan Horse? It's a Class War stupid, and Shock Doctrine is the plan of attack. In the feudal hell King-Cons wet dream about, we are all Wage Slaves pulling each down like crabs in a bucket, and employers have motes around their castles.
union fees are much like corp profit
the worker pays for both
workers pay for everything, the question is where do they get value.
posted follow up comment.
Because they want to monopolize, tax, hostily regulate, and exert undue influence over said markets for the benefit of their own wealth enrichment. Who the F is Scott Walker?
Really Walker you don't know, or is that a WTF does Scott Walker think he is!! (he's governer of WI)
That's a "it doesn't matter who Scott Walker is; the answer is the same"
only in that he proves the case that it does matter whoes in office
Deeper Analysis and Organization of Thoughts is needed. The Tea Party and GOP Party Line of "Right to Work" law appears simple. If they are to be believed, it is about outlawing 'Closed Union Shops'.
First we know three things:
1) Workers Rights and Occupational Safety came out of the struggles of Workers and Unions. Striker Breakers were thugs hired by companies to break up unions and protests.
2) Some Union Benefits are too large. Pension of 100% of past wages at 30 years is too much if the wages are over $90K per year. And there may be other perks and compensation benefits which needed to be added here.
3) Executives in Corporations and State Governments gave away the farm in many cases and probably got promotions and salary increases as they moved on in their careers.
So ...I think we are looking at a lot of "Grey" area not Right and Wrong.
I'm guessing public sector employees don't work in 'closed shops', but have the choice to join Unions.
Unions provide many benefits:
1) Collective Barganing of grievences.
2) Barganing for health care benefits and health care choices.
3) Barganing for savings options like 501K, 401K, IRAs.
4) Hearing for EEO or discrimination cases and complaints against abusive management or supervisors.
5) In the future I see Unions as helping to push for portable benefits in health care and pensions and social security that can allow older employees to change jobs without losing so much in salary, savings, and security...
---Late Addition--- I should add I am probably only looking at the face of the media or NPR and extrapolating what I have learned about business, lobbying, deregulation, business scandals, and current events like the subprime mortgage crisis, and financial crisis. Oh and of course all the presidential elections since Carter.
In the Final Analysis I think we will evalute the Tea Party and GOP cognitive distortions and see them as uncaring, predatory, and thugish.
1.All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure.
2.Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.
3.Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4.Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
5.Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.
6.Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established
7.Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.
8.Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation
9."Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.
10.Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
11.Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.
12.Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.
13) Exaggerating Reality: Taking a situation and declaring it will be the end of the USA, or Freedom, Or Liberty, or the Constitution.
14) Invoking Patriotism: Projecting a life or death frame work to get people to go to war, take up arms, condemn a country, condemn an enemy - often with no pretense at real analysis.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-distortions-erode-us-public-confidence/
I see a forum as more of a conversation, so it’s a little tough to respond to such a long piece, but I will say if we are going to start talking about things being “too rich” that have resulted from our current system I think we have much bigger numbers to look at than $90,000 dollar pensions, for instance I know of a CEO that got triple his pay in pension by almost bankrupting the company and being “thrown out” and we’re talking a lot more than $90,000 to start with, so if we want to start talking about how “fair” the system is working out, I think we start at the top.
Yeah, I could use the links. But had limited time. I can't find fault with your approach.... Works for me.
it seems the only time the righties talk "fiar" is when they are talking about unions, they have been pushing class warfare between the non-union and union workers for many years, but god forbid you should mention that Romney made 20 millino and pays less tax than a short order cook.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Look what is happening to California dummy and other States as well. Unions are sucking the life out of the taxpayers. Unions are going by the way of the dinosaur
Corporations are sucking the life out of everything, how much did the bankers cost us? Did we even get a middle class out of it? We should be giving breaks to unions if we want to create jobs not capital gains and dividends.
Get off the union thing. Some people would like to get rid of unions all-together but they're a small minority.Walker is Tea Party and he doesn't want that. He doesn't mess with private sector unions. Walker wants to privatize everything and he might start with the utilities. Might be a Koch thing. This would be a bad idea because technology is nowhere near advanced enough for us to benefit from competition among energy providers. Walker can lower taxes all he wants and he knows his buddies are poised to take anything we might save by jacked -up utility costs.
Walker does plan to go after private sector unions
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/a-transcript-of-the-walkerhendricks-union-discussion-805952v-151052965.html
From the wiki page
"A "right-to-work" law is a statute 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"
People don't like the fact that membership and/or fees are required. If unions are so great - let them be optional.
if the law is not a "right to work"
the name has been misrepresented
and the state has lied and deceived of the people
NO!!! say it isn't so......;).
"right to work" is just a phrase. It means that someone has a right to work unfettered by a requirement to join a union.
I'm sorry that was confusing for you.
I'm not sure how being in a union would fetter me
The union isn't the fetter. The fetter is the requirement to be in one. Anytime you are forced to do something - it is a loss of freedom. Granted, you may be perfectly happy to make that choice, and you may have made that choice irregardless of a requirement. The fact that you MUST join a union is what raises ire in some workers.
I assume I'm already required to be at work to get the job done
open communication on the team would improve productivity
especially those in middle management
It also means employers don't have to provide a reason to terminate employment, paving the way for payroll abuses like not paying overtime, enduring harassment, unsafe working conditions, and slandering workers when used as a reference to ensure the employers maintain the hand of control so that you know quitting or speaking out is not an option. Low wages to boot. Maybe you are in a union, maybe you don't work for a living, maybe you're privileged. You are certainly uninformed.
There are 23 right to work states in the US, and 27 forced unionization states. There are not gross differences in workplace safety, harassment, slander and general economic wellness between these states. In fact, there are studies that show pay in on par between the two groups, and unemployment is lower in right to work states. So, maybe you are the uninformed one.
lol, sure buddy. Show your sources.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055477569&page=8#117
Been working in kitchens for 20 years, high rate of abuse due to low pay/quality management. The low pay is something the service industry suffers from greatly mostly because those who have never worked in a kitchen don't consider it real work so society just thinks it's ok to ignore. They think it's all happy fun time easy work.
That's also partly due to xenophobia i.e. "They're a bunch of Mexicans so who care about them!"
But yeah, no one is going to fight for you if your boss wants to fire you for any reason whatsoever. For employees with kids or who are the sole providers in the household, this ends up being a form of slavery. There is a slim chance of finding another job so the employee can't leave, and the employee also can't speak up or else they get fired. Lets not even start on how easy it would be for racist bosses or fundamentalists to fire employees because they're black or "not Christian enough." Unions have processes in place to terminate under performing employees, but they actually make the employer prove that the employee sucks instead of just letting some BS excuse go by.
Think about it. Who has all of the power is the employer/employee paradigm? It sure ain't employees.
Can an employee just "choose another job?" Maybe if we had full employment, but not today. If you are unemployed in today's economy you are in a pool with millions of people that are as qualified or more qualified than you fighting over a few openings. Ergo, its easy to see why the workers don't just walk away from the bad situations. The 1% wants unemployment to stay high so that employers keep all of the power. The 1% wants unions to die for the same reason. Its much easier for an organization to exert its power over an individual than over hundreds of individuals that can strike at any time.
it's a good work out, but my manager became abusive
http://right-to-work-laws.johnwcooper.com/ "The main reasons people claim a state should not adopt Right to Work laws are that they lead to lower wages, are damaging to unions, and are morally wrong because they allow people to receive union services without paying for them. This paper’s critical analysis of Right to Work literature has provided strong evidence that the first two potential drawbacks of Right to Work laws are red herrings. Numerous credible studies have shown that real wages in Right to Work and non-RTW states are about the same, and if anything Right to Work states have slightly higher real wages. "
From http://media.mlive.com/news_impact/other/RTWHari4word.pdf Economic Impact of RTW and what it means for Michigan"
"The preponderance of the empirical evidence does suggest that RTW states have more manufacturing employment and economic development compared to Non-RTW states over time."
Article summarizing that same study: http://www.mackinac.org/4425
From: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-9.pdf "The proportion of Americans living in right-to-work states has risen noticeably over the years, and only a small part of that is driven by new states adopting such laws. People move in extraordinary numbers to right-to-work states from states where union pressure has prevented the adoption of such laws. Moreover, the greater flexibility for workers and employers offered where right-to-work exists has contributed to higher rates of economic growth rates in the right-to-work environment. Although the United States seems to have been in roughly a stable political equilibrium regarding these laws in recent decades, if the past trends toward the right-to-work population growing in a relative sense persists while union membership continues to fall as a proportion of the labor force, a threshold point should be passed where the political equilibrium should tip toward making right-to-work laws universal for the entire American population."
You're welcome.
People choosing to not use unions do not diminish the effect of having the choice to join a union. The rest is just personal opinion blogs. Welcome for what? All you did was offer enough to spin your argument, it's not supporting data. Sources please.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-claim-that-right-to-work-states-get-more-good-jobs/2011/09/29/gIQAGsP17K_blog.html
When I say "there are studies" and then I send you links to studies- those would be my sources. I like how I link studies and you link blogs. Nice.
Anyway, you asked me for something, I provided it. I thought you would be grateful. My bad.
Good job, you convinced yourself. Yet you haven't supplied data backing your ratio claims, only blogs and a cato study that doesn't even discus the ratio you make claims of. Now that you have convinced yourself, your work is done.
You're right. Care to try to convince me to the contrary?
I want a law that say I can be unfettered to show up at all, that would be so nice, or maybe If I want to work nude the company shouldn't be able to have a contract clause or rule that stops me, funny world where people are unfefettered by any conmitment at all at work.. are you sure that would work? what if people don't show up at all? in these states are companies required to be union? I don't think so. Can't people just work at a non union company if they don't want to pay dues?
I assume by your statements that you agree people should be forced to join a collective against their will.
No one should be forced to work anywhere they don't want to.
That's obvious. Are you also saying that people should have the right to work wherever they want without having to join the union at that business?
if the business has entered into contracts of course empolyees would be required to comply, wear unifroms sometimes join unions sometimes, I'm saying you don't have to work in a union shop if you don't want to.
can a join a business and join the union if I want ?
if the business has signed contracts and you want to work there you have to follow their rules and contracts, you can always work eleswhere if you don't want to follow the contracts that one place has signed then pick another
lol
contract is contract. ain't no freedom either way
they should call the law "The Right to Workers"
if it were up to me, any time you have collective capital (coporation) you would have collective labor on the other side of the table so a fair agreement could be reached as to the value of the labor, but some might call that over reach
I don't think you have a complete understanding of how unions work.
please feel free to fill me in what am I missing, no body is forced to work at a union shop if they don't want to, just get a job in a non union company, are you saying you want the good pay and bennefits you just don't want to pay the dues?
Unions are organized by profession. Take acting as an example. If you want to work in hollywood, you have to be part of the screen actors guild - that isn't to say the 'law' requires it, but as a practical matter no one hires actors who aren't in the union because the union has a great deal of power. The same can be said of electricians, auto workers, etc.
You can, of course, move to a non-union state or find a new career, but I don't think that is a great solution either.
Is this like no one hires people above minimum wage if they don't have to?
You mean like if you want contraception or decent pay "get an education and another job" is a bad answer? I thought you liked that answer.
OK how about :
What’s wrong with paying dues to support the team that got you those good wages that you want to work here and enjoy? Why do you want to be a freeloader and not be a part of the union? The union helps everybody, what’s a matter with you? You special or something?
There is nothing wrong with paying dues to support that team. What is wrong is FORCING someone to pay those dues if they don't want to. I also don't agree with free riders. I say if the union lobbies for a pay raise, then just let union members get the pay raise. The problem is that unions are afraid if they don't FORCE people to join, they won't get the participation they need to survive. Wisconsin is a good example. Public sector employees left the unions in droves as soon as they could.
Again, I'm not saying that union or non-union is better (in fact, I don't think anyone can make a sound case using real world data). I just don't like the idea that if I want to have a certain career, and I want to live in a certain state - then I am forced to support a group that I may not agree with. All this talk about freedom around here - but no one seems to see a problem with this.
And yes, don't ask me to pay for your contraception.
"Public sector employees left the unions in droves as soon as they could" times are hard they didn't leave the pay or bennefits just the reasponiblity, we see this in the !% all the time they don't want to pay their fair share either that's why they have the lowest tax rates in the world.
again we get back to that Who exactly is FORCING you to work at a union shop?
I explained to you how unions work two days ago. Save me the time and scroll up.
how about the "freedom" to make a decent wage, see a doctor if your sick, go to school if your bright and work hard, money isn't freedom, freedom is, time we put some freedom back into our lives and quit worrying about if the poor rich man pays too much tax, he doesn't.
the boss may ask workers to work collectively
Let me try it another way. Do you agree that people should be forced to join a collective, in this case a union, against their will? It is a yes or no question. Feel free not to respond.
a collective is a union or can be
as long as they let each other speak openly
I see you opted not to answer the question. That's fine.
please describe your union
It isn't my union. It isn't any one union. In forced-union states, employees can be forced to become a member of a union, or at least to pay union dues, in order to be hired. Do you think this is fair for the individual? Again, please answer yes or no, or just disregard the post altogether. Talking to you on this forum is exhausting.
I signed lots of papers when I went to work
mostly they amounted to all the ways I could be fired if desired
No one should be forced to accept a job they don't want.
From what you say I gather you feel you should be force to change jobs to get contraceptive converge, that’s ok, but to avoid joining a union, that’s not,
come on sign up for our 40 hour contract
course we may change those hours,, decrease or increase them at will ... without stating valid reason
so you'll need to be flexible
things they changed after I took the job would of paid dues in 5 or 6 unions easy
It's more than that. Right to work laws effectively preclude collective bargaining. If I go and work for a company, there's an implied contract that I (in my capacity as an employee) will adhere to all agreements entered into by the corporation. For example, companies enter into vendor agreements, maybe they buy computers from a company who's activities I find offensive, but yet I have no right to refuse to use company computers. Likewise, I'm expected to go along with all agreements entered into by the company, so why not a labor contract?
Is there something distinct about the idea of allowing a third party to represent employees? After all, a boss will (in effect) represent his or her subordinates, and the employee has no say in this. Indeed, wage labor is itself an implied agreement to allow a third party to have dominion in the context of the job. The only way (under our current system) employees can exert any influence over their circumstances, is to organize as a collective. If Union X enters into an agreement with Company Y, why shouldn't I, as an employee, become obligated to cooperate with the contract?
Isn't it interesting that the enemies of the 99% have no problem requiring employees to do just about anything the employer demands. The only time they bitch about third party representation is in the context of labor unions. Right to work laws are effectively an attack against the freedom of contract.
Well said.
It wasn't the enemies of the 99% that voted Walker back in as Governor of Wisconsin, it was the 99%. The people, the workers of Wisconsin.
I support protection for employees that want to organize, and I also support excluding "free riders" from benefiting from the collective bargaining that the union engages in. In this way, people can join IF THEY WANT TO - or strike out on their own if they prefer. I think this can also keep unions in check from making unreasonable demands.
I don't support forcing employees to pay into the unions. People may not agree with what the unions are doing, or may not agree with the political parties that the unions are supporting. There are any number of reasons why someone wouldn't want to be a part - and people should be able to make that choice independently.
It wasn't people, it was "sheeple" ... as only sheep feel like they need to be led.
That's right. Everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, misinformed, or some sort of herding animal.
Nope ... you still don't get it, but it's pretty simple (Walker said it himself in his victory speech). The people of Wisconsin have shown that they want to be led by (as he describes it) strong "leaders" ... in other words, they're sheep by admission, proud to count themselves among the herd.
I guess it makes sense, sheep like open spaces, and middle America is one giant open space :)
Deluded by the mantra of individualism, the sheep gladly surrender the only real power they have, collective power (and yes, this is because they're stupid).
So on one hand I called a "sheep" and on the other hand I'm accused of supporting "rugged individualism." And this is all under the same discussion about unions. Interesting.
I absolutely believe we need strong leaders, and that doesn't make me sheep. Even unions have leaders! Amazing, I know. I realize that goes against the beliefs of the "leaderless" OWS movement. You can look at the potential that this movement had a year ago and compare it to what it has actually accomplished to date and make a case for needing some sort of leadership.
If you think centuries of authoritarianism can be cured in 7 months, then please let me borrow your magic wand :)
[Removed]
Thank you for your input please see my folllow up comment.
Right to work laws make donating to the Democratic Party optional.
If you don't want to work in a union shop you can get another job, just like if you don't like what you make, or should the states pass a law that says people get to earn as much as they want no matter where they choose to work? The GOP tells me if I don't like the work get an education and get a different job, if you don't want to help the Ds don't work in union shop.
Strict contribution limits should apply to companies, unions, and people, so there's ways of addressing your concerns without attacking the right of free people (or associations) to enter into contracts. Don't get me wrong, I support an anarchist structure in labor unions (just like I support it in pretty much everything else), but for now, labor unions are the only shred of bargaining power for millions of American workers.
You can quit also if you don't want you money or work efforts to help one side or the other, same choice you have if your company or owners, through stock dicide to give to the Rs or the the Ds, you can quit or work and help the side you don't like, nothing new about that, unions are just more honest about it.
so why can't people just work in a non union shop, like if they want to make more than 8 bucks an hour, some say "get another job"
Aren't unions organized by profession? So if you are an electrician that lives in a collective bargaining state - don't you have to join the union? Otherwise you are going to have a very hard time finding work...
and if you cook it's hard to make more than MW but that don't stop some from saying that's no reason you can't change jobs, I'm saying if it's "right to work" then it should mean you have a "right to work" as they said when they hired you not just restrict it to union or no union, I worked at a place they changed the rules cost me two three times what dues would have and I didn't get a thing for the money, fair is fair if the ideal is you shouldn't have to be faced with make changes or quit, then it should go across the board
But unions do force people to join. They have an election and that's it, they own the workplace even for those that voted against them. If I choose the join a company, I should also have the choice about joining the union. Freedom: unions hate it. Unions are so great, they have to be mandatory. LOL
if you choose to join a company you agree to a rate of pay, working hours, why is being in a union any different, you can always get a different job if you don't want to join a union, if you don't want to work union you could go to school and get a different job, the same thing you do if the job doesn't pay what you want it to, right?
You can do all sorts of things. But if a company wants to hire me and I don't want to join the union, that shouldn't be illegal. Unions hate choice. They'll restrict the employer, they'll restrict you, and they'll even restrict what you are allowed to buy. Introduce freedom, and they lose.
The company can be non union or negationate a non exclusive contract, they don’t do that so they can pay less but if they are willing to offer enough in pay I am sure the exclusive part of contract can be removed, that's negations. The company signs many contracts that employees agree to comply with when they take the job. Sure the companies like it when the state steps in on their side to make it cheaper and easier for them, but that’s no different than minimum wage, so maybe if all right to work states had a 15 or 20 dollar minimum wage it would be fair.
15.00 absolute minimum to start and tied to inflation / cost of living.
Allow people to support themselves - do not stress social help programs.
oh yeah 15$ is like maybe $30,000/year that's not really enough to cover the cost of providing the labor, let alone live
Huh? Run that by me again. I think you may not have fully expressed your thinking.
yeah I was busy here, up above, I mention 15 or 20 but it was not the main thing we were talking about as you said 15 woul;d be at the low end. When speaking of wages I like to speak in trems of the cost of providing the labor, bed, shower, transportation to and from ect. and and lillte something left for the worker to see a movie or something, anyway that's what the "cost of providing labor" is about.
OK - Yep. 15.00 is definitely the low end of a living wage. But it is in a ballpark starting point. Today - not for much further down the line as things get worse.
Thanks for clearing up that for me.
thanks for stopping by, I agree, but hell I'd support a ten with a two step to 15 and indexed if we could get it
Shoot for twenty settle for fifteen. We will not see a healthy economy without it.
as you know before we can get anything done, we got some GOP to clean out....
Yep - plenty of anti-people politicians to kick to the curb.
they'd still have to sign a work contract
most jobs have you sign lots of paper
Competing is fair. Preventing it is unfair.
That's why businesses that are in non "right to work" states are almost always union so they can have the quality labor needed to compete for customers.
When companies get their buddies in state government to step in to prevent competation that's when wages go down, because labor can't compete with the state and the company, "right to work" laws stiffle competation.
To prevent compeition, wages fall? Give me an example.
Here's a link with a complete study:
http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/
In general wages are lower in right to work states because the unions are having to fight the state as well as the companies for terms, the state should either stay out of it or be on the workers side with a living wage.
It gets more complicated than that. The union states have also seen high unemployment which would be worse except for people moving to more dynamic places with greater economic freedom like Texas.
But I agree that the government should be neutral.
so we agree "Right to Work" laws are bad and should not be passed and should be repelled if possible?
I am surprised, did you change your mind?
Choosing to work is the choice ---- a contract is a contract. Owner contract or a union contract makes no difference, if I exercise my free will and choose to work for anybody, I have to agree to the conditions of the contract.
If I don't want to sign a contract, I can always exercise free will and start my own business. With the choice of being self-employed always an option, it is impossible to FORCE anybody to work under the thumb of anyone else, union or not.
Conversely, in this great free country, we even give people the freedom to live like bums if they choose not to work at all.
If you want to argue against the merits of a unionized work place - fine. Give your best argument for the benefits and advantages of adopting a right to work organization. But drop the phony pretense that a union can force anyone to do anything. It simply is not factual.
Private unions are fine. If they back a company into failing, it fails. Public unions are a corruption. They deal with labor issues at the polls. They self-select bosses who then owe them later. Their excesses are extremely tough to fix. We can't let government go bankrupt. There's nothing liberal about supporting that sort of bad goverance.
Deciding things at the polls is democracy in action. Are you seriously suggesting that only labor interests try to decide things at the polls and that owner interests don't try to do the same thing? Be careful when you point a finger, there will be three pointed back at you.
That's a weak argument. Who gives a shit, everyone does it is hardly an endorsement of looking the other way and it sure as hell is no reason to outright support it.
My argument is weak? I'm not the one fabricating nonsense about unions forcing people to do things against their will. LOL.
Government unions vote themselves compliant bosses that in turn return the favor and fuck the people. It's an obvious conflict of interest and bad goverance. That much is clear.
But what I don't understand is what is liberal about it. I can see how liberals should be against it, just not why they line up stridently in support.
Big businesses throw wads of cash and buy themselves sell-out politicians that fuck the people. It's an obvious conflict of interest and bad governance.
But what I don't understand is what is conservative about it. I can see how conservatives should be against it, just not why the line up stridently in support.
I guess it is a partisan thing. Seriously, I know there are fair points against corruption in government unions - tenured teachers is one off the top of my head. But there is corruption in big business too. Personally, I say we remove ALL corrupting influences from government. Starting with public funded campaigns. No more Koch brothers influence.
The thing is - we will always be fighting over labor interests versus owner interests. So, I am open to restructuring, but not abolishing unions. Doing so would have an enormous downside for labor interests. Does that help explain to you why liberals line up and support unions even when sometimes they should acknowledge the need for changes?
No, it doesn't. Govt unions fight even the smallest reforms and liberals go to the mat to support it. Go ahead, close the libraries. I guess they're obsolete anyways. There's a little more room for the bennys. Mentioning some other abuse is hardly a rationale for supporting your own abuse.
Yes it does. The problem is both sides abuse power. The question is how to balance the power so one side does not gain too much of an advantage. The answer is to balance the struggle for owner power with unionization power. Without unions, we would have owners walking all over employees. If you want to fairly address the abuses of power within this struggle, you can only do so by fairly pointing out all abuses and not being partisan. The liberals who go to the mat sometimes lose objectivity and fail to take needed criticisms, but there are plenty of conservatives who do the same. I am trying to be objective about the struggle between labor and owner interests.
Unions and government unions are two different things. Govt unions have done a great job trying to pass themselves off as fungible, but they aren't.
I have yet to see a conservative literally crying on TV because one their abuses just got shot down. If liberals were just passive about govt unions it would be one thing, but they actually are energetic supporters which is truly wild.
Even weirder is when young people support it. Sure, students at Madison, few of whom will ever work for govt, want to hand more power, control, and economics to govt unions, why exactly? Just the dopeyness of being that age is the best I can come up with. And I graduated Madison.
"Govt unions have done a great job trying to pass themselves off as fungible, but they aren't."
I can't take that statement at face value when you don't give a shred of reasoning to support how you reached that conclusion.
"I have yet to see a conservative literally crying on TV because one their abuses just got shot down."
John Boehner.
"Even weirder is when young people support it. Sure, students at Madison, few of whom will ever work for govt, want to hand more power, control, and economics to govt unions, why exactly? Just the dopeyness of being that age is the best I can come up with. And I graduated Madison"
Is this some secret survey I was not privy to?
Why do Cons want involvement with Private Sector? Because unlike Ron Jeremy could, Cons can't suck their own dicks ~ and Cons are freakishly greedy cocksuckers. The Private Sector likes the Cons horrendously slutty, full-throated, cock-worship technique; so it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. Filthy worshiping for blank check campaign financing.