That's the part I have a problem with...
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
right to work: anyone notice a difference?
- Thread starter .356luger
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That's the part I have a problem with...
How is it not close? It happens to be a condition of employment, even if it was not set by the company.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
What happens if the employer does not agree? They get shut down until they come to their senses and meet the demands.
Can the employer just start firing people that are part of the union?
I don't need a union to get me what I am worth an hour, all I need is a fair shot at the job.
In Indiana an employer can fire anyone for just cause... union or not.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Wish I was in charge of one of the places that had union members then, I would start firing all the union members and hire people on individual contracts
That's what I'm asking, what law says employers have to enter into a contract with unions?
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
You tell me. Walmart has fought with unions numerous times and it has been voted down, if employers can just not let a union in why is there ever a vote?
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Because I am mean spiteful bastard and the 1st job I got a local grocery store I was forced to join the union after I had already been hired, didn't sound like I had any choice. I was forced to pay union dues that I got ZERO benefit from. Within 9 months all of my raises meant nothing and the union didn't give a ****. I went from making more than minimum right back down to minimum wage and they illegally collected union dues from me every week. Too bad I didn't know that then.
BK... but now the RTW law has fixed that problem so if you wish you no longer must join a union for condition of employment, you do not have to. I'd just like to know why you think ALL union members should be fired with the current RTW law in place? Also I think you have confused the term "Just Cause" & "Just Because"... their is a difference.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
I dont think they should all be fired, just any place I was in charge of. I would be willing to rehire them with a simple contract between me and them
But employers don't "give" unions permission to dictate terms. Unions negotiate terms to employers, not employees. Unions bargain for employees in an attempt to get higher wages for the collective than the employer would likely pay(so the argument goes) if each employee negotiated solely on his own behalf.
A union negotiation looks like this TO THE EMPLOYER: "We will only work for you if you......" In your example, the union "negotiation" looks like this TO THE EMPLOYEES: "You can only work for Company X if you join us." In the latter, the union is dictating terms of employment.
No, in this example the EMPLOYER set the terms of employment. If the union were setting the terms, the people responsible for the short shorts would be the other employees. And they would also require a portion of tips be confiscated from everybody for the purpose of making sure that short shorts would always be required, even if the employer didn't require short shorts.
That's funny because you're the one arguing that that is exactly what unions do. You are the one saying that membership in the union as demanded by the union is a term of employment. So where do unions get to dictate terms of employment?
If it's not set by the employer, then how in the world can it be a term of employment? Again, how does Employee Subset A get to tell Employee Subset B what employment terms are?
I see. After talking in circles finally the truth is revealed. You know how conservatives are supposed to behave in the altered reality between your ears. Sorry, you don't get to define what a principled conservative should believe!
Sorry I don't seem to recall you adding anything of value to the discussion. I'd be happy to read an overview of Indiana law as it relates to private sector unions.
I'm giving a basic, logical argument for why conservatives should be against right to work. (it's government intervention in private contracts between consenting parties)
By all means, make your position on the subject known.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
How are the employers consenting when a union is voted into a workplace?
The employer can refuse to recognize the union, the workers either strike or go back to work. But if a union pops up and the employer decides to negotiate with them, make a contract, everyone has to live with it.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
How do you strike if you do not have union protection? Without the force of a union it is very hard for people to strike. And with he force of the union they set up picket lines
In my union yes they can. Happens all the time project hits a benchmark lay offs come around that is the way it goes. It often does not come to a strike and in my field like police I have a no strike clause for critical accounts hospitals power communications ect.
Let me ask you do you need a college degree or health insurance or a retirement plan? All these are collectively payed for by myself and my union brethren. It makes no difference to me if the guy next to me is union on the bus. The problem I have is paying for his retirement when he is not doing his part. Which in essence is what RTW does says they don't need to pay to be represented.
Representation is a complex word in a union like mine which is completely self funded.
I don't understand what your qualm is. The union's existence isn't dependent on it's being accepted by the employer.
Stickfight
Expert
Employers can't 'refuse to recognize the union' in that fashion. Typically union reps will present a company with evidence that some large percentage of their employees want representation, the employer declines to bargain with them, and the NLRB holds a formal election. If 50% or more of the employee represented vote for the union the company has to bargain with it in good faith.
Anything less than bargaining in good faith constitutes an unfair labor practice. The employees don't go on strike, the government takes the company to court.
