right to work: anyone notice a difference?

[.356luger]

NO BASHING OR POO SLINGING.

Has anyone noticed a difference in indianas economy since RTW was passed? I havent at this point seen any change drastic or gradual even to my life which this directly affects in a negative way.

just curious if it has done what everyone thought it was designed to do.

EDIT: I'M UNION I DO NOT CARE IF YOU ARE OR NOT I DO NOT CARE THAT YOU THINK UNIONS ARE BAD OR GOOD I DO CARE IF ANYONE HAS NOTICED AN IMPACT IN THEIR LOCAL ECONOMY. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE OF THE PROS AND CONS OF UNIONS BUT A DEBATE ON IF THIS LAW CAUSED AN INFLUX OF REVENUE.

 

[BravoMike]

I'm curious myself and I haven't noticed anything either.

 

[foxxie02]

no changes seen here... i am a union member and supposedly we are open shop now and I havent heard of anyone leaving union yet... was a lot of hype on both sides but nice to know if union doesnt represent we can leave now... just saying.

 

[Jludo]

I never understood the conservative case for right to work. Employees and unions should be free to enter into any contract they want, right? Just like any other job, the employee does not have a right to a job on their terms.
Always seemed like government intervening in places it shouldn't.

 

[BravoMike]

I never understood the conservative case for right to work. Employees and unions should be free to enter into any contract they want, right? Just like any other job, the employee does not have a right to a job on their terms.
Always seemed like government intervening in places it shouldn't.

In my case union is industry wide.... Guess I could change my career. I welcome right to work.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I never understood the conservative case for right to work. Employees and unions should be free to enter into any contract they want, right? Just like any other job, the employee does not have a right to a job on their terms.
Always seemed like government intervening in places it shouldn't.

You seem to forget some unions were forced upon businesses and they had no choice. They were not allowed to fire the ones trying to bring the union in and the ones that were not interested in the union would have been forced to join.

Grocery store owner I know shut a store down completely because they were infiltrating his store. He could either cave to their demands and spend more money or shut it down.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation of "right to work". While it is true that no employee has the "right" to their job, the "right to work" law in essence says that neither do unions have the "rights" to workers' paychecks. To the OP's question, the sky has not fallen (Union assertion) nor has every company in the country relocated here (Chamber of Commerce assertion). Usually I am against new laws unless there is a very compelling reason for them, but in this case since this new law effectively removed a flawed existing law (the one that required workers to join a Union, potentially against their will) I was for it. If the law was supposed to allow an individual employee the right to choose between joining a Union or not at a location that previously required that all employees join a Union they may not wish to, then it has accomplished that goal.

 

[Jludo]

You seem to forget some unions were forced upon businesses and they had no choice. They were not allowed to fire the ones trying to bring the union in and the ones that were not interested in the union would have been forced to join.

Grocery store owner I know shut a store down completely because they were infiltrating his store. He could either cave to their demands and spend more money or shut it down.

That's part of a free market is it not? Allowing workers to unionize and allowing said union to enter into a contract with the employer on terms agreed upon by both sides.
I simply fail to see where government has a responsibility to protect either the union or the employer through legislation.

 

[Jludo]

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation of "right to work". While it is true that no employee has the "right" to their job, the "right to work" law in essence says that neither do unions have the "rights" to workers' paychecks.

So you have a problem with allowing unions and business' to set their own contracts? The conservative case is for government intervention on behalf of the employee?

 

[Fourtrax]

Hmmm, I feel well qualified. I actually spent 17 years as a union member. I remember my interview and the look on the interviewers face in 1994 when I asked if I HAD to join the union. Incredulous comes to mind. This "right to work" law fixed some problems so I was all for it. Mainly, I should have the right to work where I please and choose whether I affiliate with a union or not. I personally do not want my union dues spent on electing liberal candidates or officials of any kind. So, I would have been the first in my union to opt out, giving myself a $60 a month raise. Fortunately for me, I am now a salary employee at the same company. I feel much more in line with my belief system, but that's me.

Unions make no products. They sell nothing. How are they so rich?

 

[Jludo]

Hmmm, I feel well qualified. I actually spent 17 years as a union member. I remember my interview and the look on the interviewers face in 1994 when I asked if I HAD to join the union. Incredulous comes to mind. This "right to work" law fixed some problems so I was all for it. Mainly, I should have the right to work where I please and choose whether I affiliate with a union or not. I personally do not want my union dues spent on electing liberal candidates or officials of any kind. So, I would have been the first in my union to opt out, giving myself a $60 a month raise. Fortunately for me, I am now a salary employee at the same company. I feel much more in line with my belief system, but that's me.

Unions make no products. They sell nothing. How are they so rich?

So you like government intervention in the free market when it helps you personally.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Jludo, you seem to be almost willfully misinterpreting the responses to your post. Absolutely a Union should've able to enter into a contract with a willing individual. But the "right to work" law prevents an unwilling individual from being forced to enter into that contract. You appear to be arguing that coercion by a Union should be legal, and that .gov intervention to prevent that coercion is "government over-reach". I'm no friend of intrusive government, but that argument is more than a stretch here.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That's part of a free market is it not? Allowing workers to unionize and allowing said union to enter into a contract with the employer on terms agreed upon by both sides.
I simply fail to see where government has a responsibility to protect either the union or the employer through legislation.

My friend had no option and had no legal standing, his only options were to allow the union in that he did not want or close the doors, he closed the doors. Where was his protection as the business and property owner?

 

[Jludo]

Jludo, you seem to be almost willfully misinterpreting the responses to your post. Absolutely a Union should've able to enter into a contract with a willing individual. But the "right to work" law prevents an unwilling individual from being forced to enter into that contract. You appear to be arguing that coercion by a Union should be legal, and that .gov intervention to prevent that coercion is "government over-reach". I'm no friend of intrusive government, but that argument is more than a stretch here.

No, the union should be able to enter into a contract with the employer. An extension of that is that the employer allows the union to set standards for it's employees. Unions can't force anyone to do anything they don't want. They do, however get to dictate the terms at which an employee works for the employer the union is in contract with.
The union can't come to your house and force you to join or force you to work with them. However if the union has a contract with a company you work for or want to work for and that contract says any employee must be part of the union, then it's your own prerogative whether or not you want to be employed under the given conditions.

Anyone entering into employment is under the conditions set forth by their employer and by extension the union their employer is in a contract with.

It's basic free market stuff. They can't coerce you to do something you don't want to do. At the same time you can't use the government to dictate terms of a private employment contract.

 

[Jludo]

My friend had no option and had no legal standing, his only options were to allow the union in that he did not want or close the doors, he closed the doors. Where was his protection as the business and property owner?

Right, the free market is a b**** sometimes, what do you want me to say?
Also, he couldn't find non-union workers to work for him?

 

[Bunnykid68]

No, the union should be able to enter into a contract with the employer. An extension of that is that the employer allows the union to set standards for it's employees. Unions can't force anyone to do anything they don't want. They do, however get to dictate the terms at which an employee works for the employer the union is in contract with.
The union can't come to your house and force you to join or force you to work with them. However if the union has a contract with a company you work for or want to work for and that contract says any employee must be part of the union, then it's your own prerogative whether or not you want to be employed under the given conditions.

Anyone entering into employment is under the conditions set forth by their employer and by extension the union their employer is in a contract with.

It's basic free market stuff. They can't coerce you to do something you don't want to do. At the same time you can't use the government to dictate terms of a private employment contract.

Guess you do not know how unions work then do you? Maybe they cannot do that in Indiana any longer but if the employees vote the union in they get protection from being fired and the owner of the business is forced to begin negotiations with the union and their demands or close up shop.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Right, the free market is a b**** sometimes, what do you want me to say?
Also, he couldn't find non-union workers to work for him?

They were already at the voting stage, he could not just fire them, he closed the store.

 

[Jludo]

Guess you do not know how unions work then do you? Maybe they cannot do that in Indiana any longer but if the employees vote the union in they get protection from being fired and the owner of the business is forced to begin negotiations with the union and their demands or close up shop.

So then instead of right to work, why aren't conservatives pushing for a revocation of that government protection of unions? fewer laws rather than more.

 

[atvdave]

The right to work law has not effected my local. We have not had any members opt out of the union. The company I work for (on the local level) has only hired one new employee since the RTW law went into effect, and we was a transfer from a different shop who choose to stay union.

 

[rockhopper46038]

There is something to what you say, with some caveats. The agreement between the employer and the union must be truly voluntary. Currently employers do not have the right to simply say "no" to a union. That would have to change. Secondly, union dues would have to be voluntary. Equating mandatory dues payments with an employer requirement that all employees wear steel toed boots is incorrect.