Ask one of the SDMB lawyers to explain the law behind bargaining units . It’s not my specialty. Sorry.
The way I understand it, the contracts that end up getting signed are often agreements by the employer that they will only permanently hire workers who are members of the union. Right to work laws invalidate these agreements and make it illegal to include these clauses in the contracts.
It almost sounds like you think there should be several unions at each work site competing for union members to see who can strike the best deal with management.
Unions negotiate more than just pay. They negotiate working conditions, HR policies on leave an sick days. The sort of jobs that get unionized usually don’t offer different pay scales to union members versus non-union members, whatever the union negotiates is the payscale at that employer, generally speaking.
Because I want a 10% pay increase and a worse dental plan.
The only reason we have these laws is because Democrats keep trying to force people to pay money to organizations that fund their party. It’s like a “prisoners rights” organization supporting harsh mandatory sentences, cuz hey, more members! The Democratic Party will do anything they can to protect their special interest, even if it screws over workers who see through their bureaucratic shenanigans.
Step1: Be the party of X.
Step2: Force everyone to be Xs.
Step3: Literally profit.
Sincerely,
A Virginia voter.
Apparently the current law has worked just fine since 1947, so I’m going to say the current set of law making doofuses don’t need to monkey with the constitution for this one.
Perhaps the current set of law making doofuses are concerned that a judge might weaken or eviscerate the law based on an interpretation of the Virginia constitution, and they wish to foreclose that possibility by enshrining the right in the constitution.
That possibility was mentioned above, after all.
So if that’s the case, what relevance would “the current law has been working just fine since 1947” have?
That’s the impression I’ve had as well, and it casts right-to-work laws, and the arguments for and against them, in a different light. Employees at closed shops aren’t required to join the union because the law says they have to, but because two private entities (the company and the union) have negotiated a contract which includes that provision. The new law, then, isn’t a right to work for individuals, but rather it’s a regulation on what terms a union can ask for in negotiations. And the law is championed by the party that claims to be against government regulations.
By chance, did you read the brief summaries of two cases I posted above?
Would you mind sharing which outcomes you supported and which you disfavored? And why?
Assuming you mean post #37, I had not read them.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way, I just think this topic is argued rather disingenuously. Rather than a right to work for individuals, it seems to be a prohibition on what terms a union can ask for in negotiations. Why shouldn’t a union (a private organization, after all) be allowed to negotiate for whatever terms it thinks are in its, and its members, best interests, absent any civil rights violations or similar concerns?
I’m far from an expert on the subject, but if either of those cases pertains to that question I didn’t see it.
Because it is a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Does collusion count as a “similar concern”? We have plenty of laws preventing it.
Ah, now that is a more interesting argument. Not sure if this necessarily counts as conspiracy or collusion, though. I’m not sure who is conspiring; management is free to oppose being a closed shop, or to negotiate for other concessions in return for allowing a closed shop. And there’s no element of secrecy, either; you could hardly have a closed shop without all the employees knowing about it.
Bottom line, if it was just about the right to decide not to join a union and still be employed, I would be in favor of the law. (Still don’t think it’s an appropriate matter for a constitutional amendment.) But there is so much pro-corporation crap jammed into this turkey, it’s more stuffing than meat.
With this thing out there, you can be fired because the boss doesn’t like your face. . . or because you made an ethical decision that cost the company money. . . or because the grammar on your sexual harassment complaint was incorrect.
This law sucks, and the last thing I want to see is it being made a part of the Virginia constitution.
Two parties are colluding to exclude a third unless the third pays one of the first two. Maybe conspiracy isn’t the best word choice if that requires secrecy. Linguistically, it doesn’t, but no need to confuse modern legal terms. Yes, either party could negotiate for something else. So what?
The current code referenced in the OP has under 80 words. Maybe you could help us sort out the stuffing and meat?
A close shop increases the bargaining power of the union. It’s not in the company’s interest to agree to that. They may agree to it, but will ask for something else in return.
I don’t know if that makes a difference in the legal sense, but I don’t know that I’d say that the company is colluding to run a closed shop.
I suspect they’d rather not have the closed shop*, but presumably they’re better off agreeing to one than taking whatever the alternative is, otherwise they’d take that alternative.
If I need supplier A and agree not to use any other suppliers unless they pay supplier A, supplier A and I have still worked together to restrain trade, even if I’d really like to work with supplier B without the restriction.
*Although we might be able to find examples where this is not the case. Might be fodder for a different thread. Negotiating a large group agreement could be simpler than negotiating many small group or individual agreements.
One case involved a firefighter - a captain - who was fired for joining the union, because management felt that as a captain his loyalties would be compromised; he sued and the courts ruled that the law in question forbid firing someone for joining a union.
The other case involved a man who refused to join a union and was fired. He sued and won reinstatement under the same law, because it also forbid firing someone for not joining a union.
In other words, in Virginia, a person’s choice to join or not join a union is a legally protected civil right.
Can you quote an example of the content you find problematic?
So the law was enacted to protect people’s civil rights, and we know it’s a civil right because it’s protected by a law. And it needs to be in the state constitution because being a law isn’t enough even though it has been for 60 years.
I’d be a lot more inclined to believe that argument if this amendment wasn’t being pushed by the same party that wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians.
The right to work law is the one that says that an employer doesn’t need any reason to fire you whatsoever, right? Setting aside the union stuff, a Virginia employer needs no reason at all to fire an employee, as long as that non-reason is not a reason protected by law?
IE Can’t be fired for being black, but can be fired because you wore brown shoes, that sort of thing?
As has been mentioned multiple times, similar laws in other states have seen recent challenges.
Are you talking about the two-thirds of democrats who are in favor of right to work laws?