God, I hope that gets defeated. The term “right to work law” is phony propaganda. It does nothing for anyone’s actual right to work, and its sole purpose is union busting.
See post #11. West Virginia passed a right to work law in the Spring of 2016. The law was almost immediately stayed by a circuit court judge. My guess is that Virginia legislators saw this and decided to put the bridle to any of its judges that would try the same thing.
You’re assuming that the actions of the union are always favorable to its members. What if I only plan to work in a field for a few years and so don’t want my pay to be determined by seniority? What if I’m particularly good in my field and would prefer more strongly merit-based pay? What if the union just traded (to take an arbitrary number) a 2% cost of living increase for a better family health care plan, and I don’t have any kids? What if I’m a hardcore Republican and the union regularly gives millions to the Democratic party? And so on.
pathetic. I suspect that that you would not support the reverse position would you?
you can’t read or answer a simply posed question?
It does nothing to stop unions organising or representing those who want to be represented.. Which is surely the key. Freedom to join a union, freedom from having to join a union. My position is clearly the one that gives the individual the greatest freedom and choice. I’ve yet to be given a clear, reasonable justification for forcing membership of an organisation. Particularly one that is political in nature and one that could pressure you into taking industrial action when you may not want to.
So I see it as a good thing. It does stop people having union membership forced upon them where such membership has no bearing on their ability to work
Explain to me how it is “union busting”? (That’s a direct question by the way, DrDeth seemed to have trouble picking them out so I thought I’d avoid confusion)
Cite? I thought non-union members generally received most of the benefits of any labor contract negotiated by the relevant union. No?
That is my understanding in the United States. It doesn’t have to be that way, and I’m not sure it should be that way.
Rather, any negotiated changes and representation cover everyone. You may not see those as a benefit.
I quoted two cases above that demonstrate that the law does something for the litigants’ actual right to work.
Can you explain your conclusion in light of that?
Right-to-work laws give people the right to work in poor conditions and for low wages.
Without these protections, some workers are forced to work for higher pay, and with better safety and improved conditions.
Since unemployment is higher in non-right-to-work states, and since, while nominal wages are slightly lower, butpurchasing power is the same or higher, most of the above is simply union propaganda. And most workers in the US can or have already seen thru it.
Regards,
Shodan
Give me one, and we’ll see.
Heritage Foundation is a teeeny bit biased. :rolleyes:
cite for what? I didn’t make a claim. I put forward an opinion.
We aren’t back in school and I’m not doing your work for you.
You read my posts, you saw the questions. The only reason you are pretending that they don’t exist is that you don’t want to address them. Fine, evasion noted.
:shrugs: It’s true nonetheless.
On the off chance that you are not just trying to dodge-
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Correlation does not equal causation.
I, too, have never been able to understand this. Yes, I know that it’s true, but I don’t know why it should be true. Why can’t one have a workplace with both union and non-union employees, where the union negotiates on behalf of all of its members, while the non-union members negotiate their own contracts? I can even envision a workplace with multiple competing unions, where an employee could decide which of them will do a better job of representing his interests. And if none of the unions happens to be doing a very good job, well then, why shouldn’t the employee be able to opt out?
As it is, the system we have now often boils down to “protect the workers from management, by introducing even more management”. Yes, it’s the stated purpose of the union to work for the workers’ best interests, but they often don’t actually have any incentive to do so, because the workers will have to pay their dues (or fair share fees) regardless.
Personally, I think that the only government intervention that’s needed to make unions work is to enforce whatever contracts end up getting signed, and to prosecute violence like that committed by the Pinkertons back in the day.
OK. I said it was an off chance.
Regards,
Shodan