Right to Work Bill

[figley]

If the legislature does anything, it should always be something that benefits the citizens of the State of Indiana. However, I don't understand the benefits of RTW.

From my understanding, those who are in favor of RTW, are against unions.

RTW will make union membership free, for those who wish not to pay.

Ergo, the way to discourage something, is to make it free?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main argument in favor of RTW, is that it will encourage business.

If a business is signatory to a union contract, why does it care whether or not its members pay dues?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RTW is meant to protect workers who are "forced" to be a member of a union.

Raise your hands, if you are forced to be a member of a union, against your will, stand up, and tell me about it.

If someone wishes their working conditions were better, and believes that forming a union is the answer, are they not always told to go get a different job? You don't have to put up with the status quo, and a union is not the answer, just quit, and go get a different job. Doesn't the same hold true for someone who is a union member against his will?

 

[MrSmitty]

If the legislature does anything, it should always be something that benefits the citizens of the State of Indiana. However, I don't understand the benefits of RTW.

From my understanding, those who are in favor of RTW, are against unions.

RTW will make union membership free, for those who wish not to pay.

Ergo, the way to discourage something, is to make it free?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main argument in favor of RTW, is that it will encourage business.

If a business is signatory to a union contract, why does it care whether or not its members pay dues?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RTW is meant to protect workers who are "forced" to be a member of a union.

Raise your hands, if you are forced to be a member of a union, against your will, stand up, and tell me about it.

If someone wishes their working conditions were better, and believes that forming a union is the answer, are they not always told to go get a different job? You don't have to put up with the status quo, and a union is not the answer, just quit, and go get a different job. Doesn't the same hold true for someone who is a union member against his will?

The union's argument is that there will be free riders on the union, ie, they get union pay, and protection, without paying dues, it will remove the requirement to be a union member in order to work at some places. I work in a union shop and got quite a bit of grief from my co-workers, and union steward, because I wouldn't sign the petition they are sending to Indy. I told them I would still be a member of the union, and pay dues, but that I support RTW laws. Something I have been thinking about, and I might get grief for this, but I've come to the conclusion that unions, like alot of liberal organzations, have a sense of entitlement about wages. I fall into this also, I have been looking at other jobs, and what I am getting paid is about $5-6 more an hour than other welders. I'm at the point that I can't afford to leave this job, because no one else pays what I make, but I don't feel that I'm entitled be payed higher, I just happen to have a union job, and they fought for that wage.....but still.....

 

[NYFelon]

The union's argument is that there will be free riders on the union, ie, they get union pay, and protection, without paying dues, it will remove the requirement to be a union member in order to work at some places. I work in a union shop and got quite a bit of grief from my co-workers, and union steward, because I wouldn't sign the petition they are sending to Indy. I told them I would still be a member of the union, and pay dues, but that I support RTW laws. Something I have been thinking about, and I might get grief for this, but I've come to the conclusion that unions, like alot of liberal organzations, have a sense of entitlement about wages. I fall into this also, I have been looking at other jobs, and what I am getting paid is about $5-6 more an hour than other welders. I'm at the point that I can't afford to leave this job, because no one else pays what I make, but I don't feel that I'm entitled be payed higher, I just happen to have a union job, and they fought for that wage.....but still.....

that's a tough place to be in. I understand how hard it can be to be in a place where your personal ethics are countermanded by outside forces.

rep inbound.

 

[jgreiner]

The union's argument is that there will be free riders on the union, ie, they get union pay, and protection, without paying dues, it will remove the requirement to be a union member in order to work at some places. I work in a union shop and got quite a bit of grief from my co-workers, and union steward, because I wouldn't sign the petition they are sending to Indy. I told them I would still be a member of the union, and pay dues, but that I support RTW laws. Something I have been thinking about, and I might get grief for this, but I've come to the conclusion that unions, like alot of liberal organzations, have a sense of entitlement about wages. I fall into this also, I have been looking at other jobs, and what I am getting paid is about $5-6 more an hour than other welders. I'm at the point that I can't afford to leave this job, because no one else pays what I make, but I don't feel that I'm entitled be payed higher, I just happen to have a union job, and they fought for that wage.....but still.....

Bravo on taking your stance. I was forced to be part of a union when I was in MN.....I hated it. when I was in Iowa, I then had the CHOICE.

My take is that if unions are such a wonderful thing, they will have no problems making it with RTW laws in place.

Rep inbound for your stand.

 

[figley]

snip... what I am getting paid is about $5-6 more an hour than other welders. I'm at the point that I can't afford to leave this job, because no one else pays what I make, but I don't feel that I'm entitled be payed higher, I just happen to have a union job, and they fought for that wage.....but still.....

You could try something like, only cashing every other paycheck?

Seriously? You poor thing, they make you take an extra $5-6 every hour? You don't feel like you are entitled to be paid more, but you can't afford to work for less? Pick one side of the fence, or the other.

My point is, how many people are there, who are "forced" union members, that will benefit directly from RTW? My best guess is, a handful. Not nearly enough to warrant two years worth of clogged up legislative sessions.

Again, how does this legislation, which as cost the state quite a bit in lost legislative time, benefit the state? Will the union beneficiaries, who don't pay union dues, instead send that money to the state? Where is the monetary return?

Tell me how, again, does this make a business more likely to locate and hire in Indiana? How is this bill intended to benefit a fraction of a percent of Hoosier workers?

 

[figley]

Bravo on taking your stance. I was forced to be part of a union when I was in MN.....I hated it. when I was in Iowa, I then had the CHOICE.

My take is that if unions are such a wonderful thing, they will have no problems making it with RTW laws in place.

Rep inbound for your stand.

All workers in Minnesota are required to be union? That's not very American. Much like in Iowa, most organizing campaigns in the rest of the U.S., to my knowledge, are decided by elections, wherein the employees have a choice.

I've worked for turd companies before, but in my industry, the choice to join the union, and work for a different company, actually improved things. Different strokes though, you can make your own choices...well, now that you're out of Minnesota, where it's legally required to be a union member.

 

[Roadie]

You could try something like, only cashing every other paycheck?

Seriously? You poor thing, they make you take an extra $5-6 every hour? You don't feel like you are entitled to be paid more, but you can't afford to work for less? Pick one side of the fence, or the other.

My point is, how many people are there, who are "forced" union members, that will benefit directly from RTW? My best guess is, a handful. Not nearly enough to warrant two years worth of clogged up legislative sessions.

Again, how does this legislation, which as cost the state quite a bit in lost legislative time, benefit the state? Will the union beneficiaries, who don't pay union dues, instead send that money to the state? Where is the monetary return?

Tell me how, again, does this make a business more likely to locate and hire in Indiana? How is this bill intended to benefit a fraction of a percent of Hoosier workers?

Just curious about a couple things..

Have you read the Bill?
Have you read the links posted in this thread citing studies that show the benefits of an RTW State?

 

[figley]

The union's argument is that there will be free riders on the union, ie, they get union pay, and protection, without paying dues, it will remove the requirement to be a union member in order to work at some places.

yay, entitlement class freeloaders

 

[hooky]

You could try something like, only cashing every other paycheck?

Seriously? You poor thing, they make you take an extra $5-6 every hour? You don't feel like you are entitled to be paid more, but you can't afford to work for less? Pick one side of the fence, or the other.

My point is, how many people are there, who are "forced" union members, that will benefit directly from RTW? My best guess is, a handful. Not nearly enough to warrant two years worth of clogged up legislative sessions.

Again, how does this legislation, which as cost the state quite a bit in lost legislative time, benefit the state? Will the union beneficiaries, who don't pay union dues, instead send that money to the state? Where is the monetary return?

Tell me how, again, does this make a business more likely to locate and hire in Indiana? How is this bill intended to benefit a fraction of a percent of Hoosier workers?

Many companies have a right to work check box on their evaluation list when they are looking at relocating or building a new facility.

It's just like amazon not doing business in states that have a requirement that they collect sales tax.

 

[ATM]

Just curious about a couple things..

Have you read the Bill?
Have you read the links posted in this thread citing studies that show the benefits of an RTW State?

I'll go ahead and post this a 3rd (or 4th?) time for those who still have too many of their "facts" wrong:

http://www.indianachamber.com/media/pdf/studies/IndianaRightToWork-1-27-11.pdf

 

[NYFelon]

All workers in Minnesota are required to be union? That's not very American. Much like in Iowa, most organizing campaigns in the rest of the U.S., to my knowledge, are decided by elections, wherein the employees have a choice.

I've worked for turd companies before, but in my industry, the choice to join the union, and work for a different company, actually improved things. Different strokes though, you can make your own choices...well, now that you're out of Minnesota, where it's legally required to be a union member.

Here in Suffolk County, NY, non-union shops are prohibited by law from bidding on publicly funded projects. Therefore any highway/infrastructure/public service worker is indeed forced to be in a union. So while I can't speak for the state of MN, I can give you a real-life example of forced union membership.

 

[figley]

Just curious about a couple things..

Have you read the Bill?
Have you read the links posted in this thread citing studies that show the benefits of an RTW State?

I've been studying and observing RTW for over ten years.

If you were a little bit more versed, you would understand that anyone not intimately familiar with RTW, thinks either 1) it's a gov't employment program that will put all Hoosiers to work, or 2) it is synonymous with "at will employment", and Indiana has always been RTW.

No, I haven't looked at anything linked in this thread. INGO isn't my source of economic and political information. I may have to though, as you seem to be implying that people have reported better employment conditions, and increased wages due to RTW.

 

[cordex]

From my understanding, those who are in favor of RTW, are against unions.

Not necessarily true.

RTW will make union membership free, for those who wish not to pay.

Only if the union chooses to represent non-paying members. As has already been mentioned, Unions are not required to represent non-union workers. If a union decides to (and they should!), they can negotiate only for their own members. As it sits now, unions are essentially forcing people to pay for representation by claiming the authority to negotiate on behalf of all workers.

If a business is signatory to a union contract, why does it care whether or not its members pay dues?

If a business treats and trains its employees well, a union is unnecessary. Worse than unnecessary, it is a parasite that leeches money from its members, thereby costing a business more to offer the same lifestyle for the employees, reduces the number of employees that can be hired on a given budget, etc.

Additionally, labor unions can drive up the cost of doing business beyond the value of the work. When a union forces a company to pay more than work is actually worth (i.e., if the business can only make $50 a day from a laborer who costs $100 a day), guess what happens? No more job, no more $100 a day. Force them to keep the position and lose money on it, pretty soon the company goes out of business. Not good for anyone.

RTW is meant to protect workers who are "forced" to be a member of a union.

Raise your hands, if you are forced to be a member of a union, against your will, stand up, and tell me about it.

Anyone who is hired by a company that requires union representation. I've known several.

If someone wishes their working conditions were better, and believes that forming a union is the answer, are they not always told to go get a different job? You don't have to put up with the status quo, and a union is not the answer, just quit, and go get a different job. Doesn't the same hold true for someone who is a union member against his will?

It seems "go somewhere else" is the cry of both sides.

My point is, how many people are there, who are "forced" union members, that will benefit directly from RTW? My best guess is, a handful. Not nearly enough to warrant two years worth of clogged up legislative sessions.

If only a few people are going to leave unions, why do unions care so much? Why are they willing to pay people to protest, push the Democrats to leave the state, and lament the immediate death of unions statewide?

 

[figley]

Here in Suffolk County, NY, non-union shops are prohibited by law from bidding on publicly funded projects. Therefore any highway/infrastructure/public service worker is indeed forced to be in a union. So while I can't speak for the state of MN, I can give you a real-life example of forced union membership.

Is it a law that just says they have to be union employers, or is it implied, by a certain safety or bond rating that essentially only union shops have? Or, is it the fact that they all have something similar to a PLA, and union shops are the only ones willing to pay a prevailing wage, and consequently, the only ones who bid those jobs?

If you are a highway/infrastructure/public service worker, is there a law prohibiting you from getting another job?

 

[Roadie]

I've been studying and observing RTW for over ten years.

If you were a little bit more versed, you would understand that anyone not intimately familiar with RTW, thinks either 1) it's a gov't employment program that will put all Hoosiers to work, or 2) it is synonymous with "at will employment", and Indiana has always been RTW.

No, I haven't looked at anything linked in this thread. INGO isn't my source of economic and political information. I may have to though, as you seem to be implying that people have reported better employment conditions, and increased wages due to RTW.

Oh, I see, I am sorry I am not as "well versed" as you, as I didnt not realize that "well versed" meant the same thing as "dismissing evidence that you admit you havent even read"

I will try and do better next time.

Oh, on a serious note, the validity of information linked to on INGO does not automatically diminish merely because it was referenced on INGO..

Just my

 

[goinggreyfast]

.

 

[NYFelon]

Is it a law that just says they have to be union employers, or is it implied, by a certain safety or bond rating that essentially only union shops have? Or, is it the fact that they all have something similar to a PLA, and union shops are the only ones willing to pay a prevailing wage, and consequently, the only ones who bid those jobs?

If you are a highway/infrastructure/public service worker, is there a law prohibiting you from getting another job?

It is law. Non-union shops may not bid on publicly funded projects. There are no ifs, ands, or butts. Three miles of highway need to be repaved? Your Asphalt company has 1000 employees, and has an exemplary record of service? It is not union? You are legally prohibited from bidding on the project.

As to your second question, no, of course their is no law stating who for or where you may work. That's not germane to our exchange however. Your position seemed to imply that there was no such thing as forced union membership. I simply provided an example of where there is.

 

[longbarrel]

10% of the employed in Indiana are union workers, right? So, why does anyone even give a rat's ass? Bottom line, it's bull**** politics, from both sides. The Democrats just want the union money, and the republicans, want it, but don't get it. It is definitely more about trying to one side the state(politically) and not about the rights of workers. Why else would you go after %10 of the population? Do they pose that much of a threat?

 

[Roadie]

10% of the employed in Indiana are union workers, right? So, why does anyone even give a rat's ass? Bottom line, it's bull**** politics, from both sides. The Democrats just want the union money, and the republicans, want it, but don't get it. It is definitely more about trying to one side the state(politically) and not about the rights of workers. Why else would you go after %10 of the population? Do they pose that much of a threat?

How is giving choice to 100% of the workforce "go[ing] after %10 of the population"?

Can you elaborate as to which part of this, specifically, is about trying to "one side the state?

Synopsis: Employee's right to work. Makes it a Class A misdemeanor to require an individual to: (1) become or remain a member of a labor organization; (2) pay dues, fees, or other charges to a labor organization; or (3) pay to a charity or another third party an amount that represents dues, fees, or other charges required of members of a labor organization; as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. Establishes a separate private right of action for violations or threatened violations.

 

[figley]

How is giving choice to 100% of the workforce "go[ing] after %10 of the population"?

the other 90% already doesn't pay union dues, so what is there for them to opt out of?

for argument's sake, say that 10% of the workforce is union, and that sure seems to be the only people RTW is worded to benefit. the majority of them are anti-RTW, and wouldn't take advantage of the welfare it provides. there is a tiny minority of union workers who wish they weren't members, yet won't quit, and find a job elsewhere. we've covered the fact that it's because they can't live on the wages paid at the non-union shops. in the end, it's that minority, of an overwhelming minority, that is the beneficiary of this whole debate. how does it matter one iota to the other 90% of workers?

think of all the things we could have had instead, like Sunday liquor sales, and a law saying we are allowed to tar & feather gay people.