Right to work?

[Blackhawk2001]

First, Right To Work and Prevailing Wage are two separate items. The Government jobs that are PW jobs are not covered by RTW.

Second, no law forces any company to accept and keep contracts with any union. Companies break contracts and hire a new work force all the time.

Third, RTW will affect skilled trades unions and hard. In skilled trades the union hall is also the job locator and puts the person with the proper skills on the proper jobsite. They also find jobs out of jurisdiction when times get hard and there are not enough jobs in home jurisdiction. Skilled trade unions also don't have seniority, they have no paid time off, there is no protection for "slackers" who can't or won't do the work. The contractor can fire or layoff anyone at any time for no reason, the only time they are held accountable is when they "fire without rehire" which means the person is not eligible to return. Then the union hall wants to know why.

A lot of your facts are biased by your political lean, but that hasn't stopped most of you from spouting them repeatedly.

No one forces anyone to join a union, people join because they want a job with a certain company to get the pay and benefits that are offered there. Or they join because they are adept in a trade and they want the pay and benefits offered by that trade. Indiana has always been a RTW state, no one has ever said you can't work somewhere. There have been non-UAW plants in this state for decades, there have been non-union construction contractors (and more of them than union) longer than anyone on this board has been alive.

So flame away, but get all the facts straight.

Let's talk about bias. You paint the unions - all of them - as saintly groups banding together for the good of the workers. You say no one forces anyone to join a union. Yet we have stories from the West Coast of 600 union workers storming a facility, unlawfully holding the security people, and trashing the facility over a labor dispute. In Missouri, at the state university, a labor relations class had a union leader who bragged to the class about busting heads of reluctant workers and how judicious use of sabotage in the workplace was a "legitimate" labor action.

The SEIU and other labor unions haven't shied away from using violence and coercion to get what they want and they hide behind the protective skirts of the NLRB when the companies who hire their workers fight back. I won't say YOU haven't got your facts straight, but I will say you haven't put all the relevant facts on the table, either.

 

[.356luger]

My billed cost an hour is in the low 120s and I make a fine living. The customers are happy to pay it because I'm trained and efficient.
QUOTE]

How much of that $120/hr do you take home .

My total cost to the company I believe to be 46$ ish an hour. Out of that my take home is 33.25/hr. where does that money go? To 2 pentions an IRA account, my health insurance, a continued education fund for the new members, and a few small projects we voted in. Leaving my employer 80/hr after its all said and done. Without matching a 401k without holding health insurance fOr me, without sending me to school to better myself,

 

[beararms1776]

I'm certain for fact that there are "some" quote: some, that think I shouldn't be working and using my abilities and experience to help a company grow and make myself a living but hey, I have a right to work. Just ask some disgruntled liberal that's pissed because they have to work for a living.

 

[88GT]

I'm certain for fact that there are "some" quote: some, that think I shouldn't be working and using my abilities and experience to help a company grow and make myself a living but hey, I have a right to work. Just ask some disgruntled liberal that's pissed because they have to work for a living.

Probably some who think the company should be paying but the employee shouldn't have to work to help the company be profitable too.

 

[Libertarian01]

SemperFiUSMC,

Please tell me where I have asked for government interference in this thread and I will rep you!

If you cannot, which you cannot, please promise to stop putting words in my mouth and I will try to avoid putting them in yours...

Regards,

Doug

OK... It's abhorent. So what? Why is it the role of government to interfere in the employment relationship? If someone is willing to work under the conditions, let them. If no one will then the conditions will necessarily change in order to attract labor. Seeking government intervention and protection from the big bad corporation seems to be the antithesis of libertarianism. How do you square this?

 

[dross]

The function of business is to reward capital investment. It's not to provide jobs, food, shelter, medical care, or anything else. Jobs are an outcome of business, a necessary evil if you will, not a goal.

This is brilliantly stated. Repped.

Second, no law forces any company to accept and keep contracts with any union. Companies break contracts and hire a new work force all the time.

Not exactly correct. The employer is required BY LAW to bargain in good faith with the union. Refusing to bargain, offering take it or leave it options, or many other things can be construed to be unfair labor practices, which is against the law. In many states, the courts are very pro union, causing very loose interpretations of unfair labor practices.

Also, if the employees are only striking for compensation issues, the company may fire them. They may NOT fire them if they are striking for alleged unfair labor practices, which of course are always included as reasons.

Can you provide some examples of employees breaking existing contracts illegally, firing the workers and hiring new workers and getting away with it?

 

[dross]

SemperFiUSMC,

Please tell me where I have asked for government interference in this thread and I will rep you!

If you cannot, which you cannot, please promise to stop putting words in my mouth and I will try to avoid putting them in yours...

Regards,

Doug

You don't ask for it explicitly, but implicitly. Unless you agree with me. I think unions should be allowed to exist. I also think an employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason at all, except in violation of a contract they signed, and even then, the law should allow it but the employee would have civil recourse to enforce the contract and that's all.

If you think the law should regulate the business relationship between workers and employers, then you're advocating government interference, whether you explicitly state it or not.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

SemperFiUSMC,

Please tell me where I have asked for government interference in this thread and I will rep you!

If you cannot, which you cannot, please promise to stop putting words in my mouth and I will try to avoid putting them in yours...

Regards,

Doug

Oh, I don't know, but I submit that taking the position that right to work laws are not OK and advocating for anything less than total repeal of all laws and regulation that invite government interference with the employment relationship is de facto inviting government interference. Couple that with your reasoning that corporations are bad and some exist to torment their employees and the combination leads a reasonable person to believe that you support government efforts to "fix" a problem it has no business engaging in.

There has never, in the darkest days of the industrial revolution, been any justification for union thugs and their Democrat lackeys in government to collude to overthrow the business of another person. Yes, companies were bad actors. Yes, they did unseakable thinks. The remedy is to quit, not pass laws or set up picket lines denying anyone of the value of their property.

If you feel that I put words in your mouth it is because yours were equivocal. I hope mine are not.

 

[CarmelHP]

SemperFiUSMC,

Please tell me where I have asked for government interference in this thread and I will rep you!

If you cannot, which you cannot, please promise to stop putting words in my mouth and I will try to avoid putting them in yours...

Regards,

Doug

If you oppose right-to-work then you support the government being able to tell workers that they MUST pay union dues or be fired.

 

[.356luger]

Probably some who think the company should be paying but the employee shouldn't have to work to help the company be profitable too.

You are unrelentingly blinded by your inability to accept the fact that people in the union are there because they want to be. Unions do not ask for a free lunch. For you to so arrogantly state that they do is a testament to your ignorance. Constant misguided under informed statements from you show the true crippling blindness of today's world. Perhaps you should read a few theory's about right to work as a whole and leave your feelings for the unions out of it. Hell read a few reports on RTW states economy. Maybe read about indianas economy before you falsely accuse the union which is comprised of me and thousands of other hoosiers just like you. It was our choice to unite and it will be our choice to disband. How can you not see the abuse on the horizon?

It would seem no one realizes Indiana has been a RTW state twice alread, and twice it has been stripped from practice. This is because it is time tested to weaken what it was supposed to cure.


Here is something to think about: an ingo member equated raising his neighbors property value and his neighbor having to pay him. To right to work

Perhaps you bought a new gun reloaded ammo for it tricked it out to the max. I should be able to walk in take it from you use it when it benefits me?

 

[RockofStrength]

Perhaps you bought a new gun reloaded ammo for it tricked it out to the max. I should be able to walk in take it from you use it when it benefits me?

No. But then employees who work for a company outside of the union contract do not benefit from the union contract. They do not receive the prerogatives, responsibilities, rewards, or costs of the contract and are in fact unrelated to the union save that they compete with union employees in the same business. So your analogy fails on every conceivable level.

 

[.356luger]

No. But then employees who work for a company outside of the union contract do not benefit from the union contract. They do not receive the prerogatives, responsibilities, rewards, or costs of the contract and are in fact unrelated to the union save that they compete with union employees in the same business. So your analogy fails on every conceivable level.

At this point it doesn't apply if righ to work is passed that will be exactly what it means. It will serve the sole individual instead of the work force as a whole. If non union workers come onto a union work site you can bet your ass they receive union level wages. Unless their current wage is higher. If not the union will strike until the non union gets what they are entitled to. Case and point center grove high school. Mon union carpenters were not getting prevailing wage the job went on strike until they did.

 

[dross]

You are unrelentingly blinded by your inability to accept the fact that people in the union are there because they want to be. Unions do not ask for a free lunch. For you to so arrogantly state that they do is a testament to your ignorance. Constant misguided under informed statements from you show the true crippling blindness of today's world. Perhaps you should read a few theory's about right to work as a whole and leave your feelings for the unions out of it. Hell read a few reports on RTW states economy. Maybe read about indianas economy before you falsely accuse the union which is comprised of me and thousands of other hoosiers just like you. It was our choice to unite and it will be our choice to disband. How can you not see the abuse on the horizon?

It would seem no one realizes Indiana has been a RTW state twice alread, and twice it has been stripped from practice. This is because it is time tested to weaken what it was supposed to cure.


Here is something to think about: an ingo member equated raising his neighbors property value and his neighbor having to pay him. To right to work

Perhaps you bought a new gun reloaded ammo for it tricked it out to the max. I should be able to walk in take it from you use it when it benefits me?

I want you to be able to join, and be in any union as long as you want. I just want employers to be free under the law, too. You choose to join the union, you choose to work in a certain place, you choose when you want to leave that job. The employer should have all the same rights.

Also, no one may be forced to join a union, but if they're forced to pay dues, how is that not the same? "Hey, you don't have to belong to this club, you just have to pay the membership dues." How is that a difference?

 

[88GT]

You are unrelentingly blinded by your inability to accept the fact that people in the union are there because they want to be. Unions do not ask for a free lunch. For you to so arrogantly state that they do is a testament to your ignorance. Constant misguided under informed statements from you show the true crippling blindness of today's world. Perhaps you should read a few theory's about right to work as a whole and leave your feelings for the unions out of it. Hell read a few reports on RTW states economy. Maybe read about indianas economy before you falsely accuse the union which is comprised of me and thousands of other hoosiers just like you. It was our choice to unite and it will be our choice to disband. How can you not see the abuse on the horizon?

It would seem no one realizes Indiana has been a RTW state twice alread, and twice it has been stripped from practice. This is because it is time tested to weaken what it was supposed to cure.


Here is something to think about: an ingo member equated raising his neighbors property value and his neighbor having to pay him. To right to work

Perhaps you bought a new gun reloaded ammo for it tricked it out to the max. I should be able to walk in take it from you use it when it benefits me?

Did you have a point in this collection of grammar errors and misspellings? Try as I might, I cannot find one coherent point of logic.

 

[Libertarian01]

SemperFiUSMC,

I see your point and concede the link. I tried to send you the Rep but it won't let me as I must spread some around. I will send it ASAP.

However, in my first post I thought I stated quite clearly that I was opposed to Right-To-Work under the current law whereby those in a business could profit from the negotiations of the Union without paying for it. Change the NLRA and I will agree with RTW.

I will also disagree though on a few points. A business is nothing more than a tool that is created to provide a product and/or service to another person in the hopes of generating enough revenue to be self sustaining. It is neither good nor evil. Simply a tool.

I am not for repealing all laws regarding business operation. That would be ridiculous. Legally, a corporation is a person and we all as persons are subjected to laws governing our actions. Why should a corporation be any different? We have laws against rape, battery, and a host of other actions that do not permanently physically damage a person.

When the business is created to provide the product or service it takes a cooperative effort, in many cases, of a group of human beings working together. The creators, or management if you will, will always have more power within the organization than those who have less "important" skills. The argument becomes "how much more power?"

You have said, generally speaking, take it or leave. Why not a third option? Make it better! Make it a more safe environment. Make it a more friendly environment. Make it a less abusive environment.

This is all I advocate for through a negotiated contract between the employer and employee. As the employer generally has more "strength" in bargaining one on one, there is nothing wrong or unethical with the employees banding together to gain strength themselves. Too much on either side can lead to bad things.

Another thought is that if you don't want to have to deal with the problem it is sssoooo easy: Don't hire any employees! Be a one man shop and your business can do whatever it wants. The business owner can answer all the phones, make every widget, pack every order, ship every order and on and on and on. That way you never grow very big but guess what? No employee issues. A friend of mine does exactly this as a computer programmer. He makes data bases and is a one man show. Every business could follow the same model.

Kind Regards,

Doug

Oh, I don't know, but I submit that taking the position that right to work laws are not OK and advocating for anything less than total repeal of all laws and regulation that invite government interference with the employment relationship is de facto inviting government interference. Couple that with your reasoning that corporations are bad and some exist to torment their employees and the combination leads a reasonable person to believe that you support government efforts to "fix" a problem it has no business engaging in.

There has never, in the darkest days of the industrial revolution, been any justification for union thugs and their Democrat lackeys in government to collude to overthrow the business of another person. Yes, companies were bad actors. Yes, they did unseakable thinks. The remedy is to quit, not pass laws or set up picket lines denying anyone of the value of their property.

If you feel that I put words in your mouth it is because yours were equivocal. I hope mine are not.

 

[RockofStrength]

At this point it doesn't apply if righ to work is passed that will be exactly what it means. It will serve the sole individual instead of the work force as a whole. If non union workers come onto a union work site you can bet your ass they receive union level wages. Unless their current wage is higher. If not the union will strike until the non union gets what they are entitled to. Case and point center grove high school. Mon union carpenters were not getting prevailing wage the job went on strike until they did.

That is not a result of the right-to-work situation, however, but rather the union's own response to the fact that someone worked for less than their own workers did. If that were permitted, the union's power-base would be undermined by other equally competent workers who could choose to work for a lower wage: therefore, the union strikes to benefit the non-union workers to preserve their own worth to the company.

In that sense, a non-union worker in a company with a union labor force could benefit from a right-to-work situation. However as I said, that is because of the response of the union and not because RTW somehow demands that such strikes/negotiations take place.

 

[flagtag]

I belong to a union. I wish I didn't. They are totally useless!
At my location, "we" voted a union in. Even those who didn't want the union are forced to join because we are a "closed shop" Yet, our union doesn't protect us as they should. It's almost as if we didn't have one - except they receive our dues.

In fact our "representative" told us at a recent meeting (which we called because we have (?) a Stewart and two alternates who aren't doing their jobs. Last election, only two of the positions were up for election - we wanted all three. And not all the members were allowed to vote, even though they paid dues as well.) that we "didn't have a right to elections" and that HE "didn't have to give us any rights at all!" We have another year with this contract. We are checking out other unions.

We want representation but not with this "representative". If he gets voted out (replaced) and someone who actually cares about those who he/she represents and not the money, we may stay with the current union, but not as long as he is here. (But, we have gone over his head with no relief) We shall see.

 

[MrSmitty]

I work at a job that requires us to be union members to work there, a "right to work" state would allow me to work without having to be a union member...Unions hate right to work because if people can choose to get the same pay, but not have to pay union dues, what do you think they will do? Personally I don't like having a union telling a company what to do, but I like having the protection the union provides, it's harder for the company to fire me for little stuff...I will remain a union member if Indiana goes "RTW"

 

[Libertarian01]

Flagtag,

I would suggest trying to run and/or supporting a candidate you like.

This sounds like a good example of the downside of Unions.

It would be good of you to start attending the Union meetings and getting more involved to change things for the better.

Also, consider contacting the NLRB and looking into your rights as a dues paying Union member. Much like in other areas you have to threaten some folks w/ a lawyer perhaps in your case threaten with outside interference.

You can also hold a vote to decertify the Union.

Good Luck!

Regards,

Doug

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I will also disagree though on a few points. A business is nothing more than a tool that is created to provide a product and/or service to another person in the hopes of generating enough revenue to be self sustaining. It is neither good nor evil. Simply a tool.

"in the hopes of generating enough revenue to be self sustaining" - are you serious?

Businesses exist to reward investment. The product or service provided is irrelevent. The reward is consumate with the risks involved.

I am not for repealing all laws regarding business operation. That would be ridiculous. Legally, a corporation is a person and we all as persons are subjected to laws governing our actions. Why should a corporation be any different? We have laws against rape, battery, and a host of other actions that do not permanently physically damage a person.

Why would it be ridiculous? Who is Doug the Janitor or Doug the rocket scientist to tell a property owner how to operate their business? If Doug has no ownership interest in the business, he has no decision in how it operates. Suggest, absolutely. Demand, no way.


As a property owner why can I not use my property as I see fit? You are suggesting that it is OK, even desirable for government to control the means of production. Again I ask how does that square with libertarianism? As a property owner am I entitled to the value and use of my property or not?

When the business is created to provide the product or service it takes a cooperative effort, in many cases, of a group of human beings working together. The creators, or management if you will, will always have more power within the organization than those who have less "important" skills. The argument becomes "how much more power?"

Coupled with your desire for government to control the means of production this statement treads very close to Marxist dogma. I could not disagree more strongly.

How much power? How about absolute power. There is no argument. The property owner owns the property. It is theirs. They can choose to seek input or suggestions from their work force, but in the end it is management's responsibility, not the laborers, to fulfill the basic roll of business - rewarding capital investment.


Have you ever started a business? Most startups involve one person with a dream. They soon realize they need more help, and seek out experts in various disciplines. But this is irrelevent unless you are of the Marxist belief that business exists to the benefit of anyone other than its owners.

The investors are the owners of the business, the property. It is theirs to do with as they will. A laborer owns their labor, their time, and their end product. To the extent that their labor is required by a business, the business may purchase that labor at agreed upon rates. Most jobs have risks of varying types and degrees, and a laborer should factor those risks in when negotiating a labor rate.

If you as a business owner could hire 100 people to build your widget at a cost of $100 each per year, or buy a machine that will operate for 10 years to do the same work for $10,000 and hire 1 operator for $50 per year, which would you do?

You have said, generally speaking, take it or leave. Why not a third option? Make it better! Make it a more safe environment. Make it a more friendly environment. Make it a less abusive environment.

I'm all for a safe, better, more friendly and less abusive work environment. I provide an incredible work environment with exceptional benefits for my employees. I do that by choice, not by government mandate. And yet I still have government idiots come in to tell me I can't have the refrigerator full of free food sitting where it is, or that I need to have Les Nessman yellow tape walls in certain places so that the few people that access those areas know that they could walk into a storage rack, as if the storage rack itself were invisible and only became visible to the untrained naked eye when properly surrounded by magic yellow tape, and that I need to have an aisleway wide enough for wheelchair access when there is no way that anyone in a wheelchair could access the stuff on the eight foot tall storage rack. I could go on and on with the stupidity that rains down on me everyday by a group of people that have never had to be productive a single day in their lives. You think those burdens on me are acceptable, even desirable. I don't.

I don't want anyone telling me how to use my property. I am not going to tell others how to use theirs. That is libertarianism. The liberty to own and use property as you see fit.

This is all I advocate for through a negotiated contract between the employer and employee. As the employer generally has more "strength" in bargaining one on one, there is nothing wrong or unethical with the employees banding together to gain strength themselves. Too much on either side can lead to bad things.

I have no problem with collective bargaining. It is efficient in a large organization. But I have an absolute problem with employees making demands and threatening to slow or shut down a business because they don't get their way. If the business doesn't meet your demands, whatever they are, and your demands are no gos then quit and sell your labor elsewhere. If the risks are too great get another job or find a new career.

Another thought is that if you don't want to have to deal with the problem it is sssoooo easy: Don't hire any employees! Be a one man shop and your business can do whatever it wants. The business owner can answer all the phones, make every widget, pack every order, ship every order and on and on and on. That way you never grow very big but guess what? No employee issues. A friend of mine does exactly this as a computer programmer. He makes data bases and is a one man show. Every business could follow the same model.

So a Chinese restaurant owner who runs the restaurant with his wife, the flower shop owner with no employees, the plumber or electrician with a truck are all allowed to run their business as they choose but a small busness with less than 100 enployees, the economic engine of this nation, cannot? Neither can large companies, who drive innovation to market and mass produce items for mass consumption? Wow.


I thought this was America, land of the free and all that. I guess it's only free if you fail to succeed.


When you wonder why American companies make products overseas and why we are losing manufacturing capability you can look at your business philosophy as a driving factor. China doesn't require imaginary yellow tape walls. Mexico and India don't try to regulate the amount of dust in the air. They don't tell others how to run their businesses. It's a sad state when we look to communist and third world nations for ideas on how government should regulate business.