Printable View
So I'm trying to understand how exactly the "Right To Work" laws signed in Mich. are bad for "workers"
I mean you can still join the union if you want right ?
If the unions are so good you would't wanna leave them right ?
I understand that stats say that in RTW states the workers make a little less.. and have slightly less benefits.. but if these are not working for you you can still join/rejoin the union .. right ?
To me the only ones really hurt by this are union bosses...
All right to work says is that you don't have to be in the union and you don't have to pay union dues if you choose to not be in the union.
Some companies have closed shops which means you can not work for that company if you do not join the union. Other companies give employees the option to join the union but employees are still required to pay union dues regardless of their membership status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDee
I get that .. that is why I'm confused to how it is "bad for the worker" ....
I'm wondering if there is more then that
It's said to be bad for the worker because its bad for the unions. Anything bad for the union is said to be bad for the worker.
If people are allowed to choose not to join the union and not pay dues a lot of people will opt to not join the union and not pay union dues. Doing so will reduce the amount of money the union receives and the unions will claim that that minimizes the necessary funding to retain attorneys and pay for collective bargaining and arbitration.
If you work for a company that requires you to pay union dues regardless of your union membership why not join the union? If you do not join the union you are not entitled to union representation in the event that your job is threatened. This is often something union afterwards say to people who don't want to join the union and more often than not it is enough to get them to join the Union bOn the flip side you don't have to go on strike if the union calls a labor stoppage.
Personally I'm all for right to work. A person should have a choice but I'm also not a fan of labor unions so my opinion is bias.
Labor unions used to have a place in our society but no longer are needed after the .gov became one for everyone in the nation.
This pretty much sums it up ... unions have created the big lie that non-union work is bad for workers and union work is good for workers (when most of the time the opposite is true).Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDee
The thing this law changes is if you have to support the bargaining unit, that is pay dues. You currently do not have to a member of the union to work in a union shop. You can be required to pay the part of the dues that pay for the negotiating and defending the contract as a condition of employment. Current law requires the union to represent anybody that is paying to support the contract. The right to work laws eliminate the mandatory payment to support the contract.
The only ones hurt by this are the union bosses and the politicians they pay.
i am sure the Hostess workers just love their union about now
it is not bad for workers IMHO, the union wage negotiations are a big [art of why nothing is made in america anymore, between the govt over-regulation and the union forcing wages higher and benefits out of sight the business cannot compete anymore,
The theory behind why RTW is bad is what economists call "the free-rider problem." People who work in union-represented workplaces, without being members, still benefit from union representation in the contract negotiation. I can't remember if they still benefit from union representation in disciplinary measures, since it's been years since I've played in that sandbox.
That's also the theory behind why, in some states, a union can either require represented non-members to pay for what are called "representational expenses" (the union's expenses associated with negotiations) or, in some cases, be forced to give partial refunds or discounts on dues for non-representational expenses. I did that in a job where I was a union member due to an utterly evil management climate where I wanted the help with disciplinary matters, but didn't want to support the union's political endorsements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights
Just my 2 cents.
Right to work also means that the employer has a right to fire someone's ass if they are not doing their job. Also, non-compete contracts are virtually null in a right to work state (that's a good thing).
I've worked in a right to work state for most of my life. Never had a problem. But then, I did my job. I don't care for unions, I've been on plenty of union run job sites and can hardly believe anything got done.
You do not want to work for a union company without joining the union unless you want to receive nastygrams on the windshield of your car, have your car vandalized, etc.