Right to Work Bill

[figley]

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.

NY laws are unjust? I shouldn't doubt that.

The law to which you refer, sounds, on the surface, to be unjust. Considering the level of political clout I've been led to believe unions have in NY, I don't doubt that it may be.

Those workers though, are not forced to be union. There is a whole non-union economy out there, albeit in different industries.

 

[CarmelHP]

NY laws are unjust? I shouldn't doubt that.

The law to which you refer, sounds, on the surface, to be unjust. Considering the level of political clout I've been led to believe unions have in NY, I don't doubt that it may be.

Those workers though, are not forced to be union. There is a whole non-union economy out there, albeit in different industries.

That's a lie. If the owner of a business wants to hire you, but there is a unionized work force, you ARE forced to join the union.

 

[figley]

I [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE] had to do some color editing.

Not necessarily true.

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 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.

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

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

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?

cite?

Closest to truth as you've gotten

Because without a contract, all that money would stay on the check? Seriously?

The relationship has to be mutually beneficial. Each side depends on the other.

This doesn't count as, "forced to be a member". Again, the "I would quit, but I can't make this much elsewhere", doesn't hold water.

Because, at the core, unions aren't just about union members. Unions are about improving the lives of anyone who works for a wage. The outcry isn't about lost members, it's about protecting wages and conditions for all working Hoosiers.

 

[Cerberus]

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

It's for the times they might find employment at a socialist union shop. Freepersons should be free to choose to or not to join anything they wish.

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.

From the days when I was in a union shop, many of the workers wouldn't have joined if they would have had the option.

there is a tiny minority of union workers who wish they weren't members, yet won't quit, and find a job elsewhere.

Ain't many jobs left thanks to politicians supported by those same unions.

we've covered the fact that it's because they can't live on the wages paid at the non-union shops.

Uh, I've actually made more in 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?

Because we should all care about being free.

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.

So, increasing drunkeness and needlessly targeting folks that think differently are better uses of the force of the state?

.

 

[Roadie]

Because, at the core, unions aren't just about union members. Unions are about improving the lives of anyone who works for a wage. The outcry isn't about lost members, it's about protecting wages and conditions for all working Hoosiers.

Seriously? Was that supposed to be in purple?

 

[longbarrel]

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?

To answer your first response, the employee free choice act would have given 100% of the workforce a choice. Did not agree with it, but???

The second part of my response to your question is, specifically, In Indiana, the number one supporter of Democratic candidates is, you guessed it..labor unions. If the Republicans can bust up the labor unions(all 10% of them) then where will their Democrat counter-parts get the majority of their campaign money That is why it is nothing but bull**** politics. It is not about working people of Indiana. If labor unions contributed to the Republicans as much as they do the Democrats, then the roles would be reversed. They are getting paid to think and vote a certain way. just as any other law maker in the country.

 

[jsharmon7]

Just to clarify, the RTW bill doesn't eliminate unions, it just prevents unwilling workers from being forced to join the union, right? How could anyone be against having the right to choose for yourself whether you'll join a union or not? If they are as great as all the union guys say, they shouldn't have to force people to join the gang.

 

[Roadie]

To answer your first response, the employee free choice act would have given 100% of the workforce a choice. Did not agree with it, but???

The second part of my response to your question is, specifically, In Indiana, the number one supporter of Democratic candidates is, you guessed it..labor unions. If the Republicans can bust up the labor unions(all 10% of them) then where will their Democrat counter-parts get the majority of their campaign money That is why it is nothing but bull**** politics. It is not about working people of Indiana. If labor unions contributed to the Republicans as much as they do the Democrats, then the roles would be reversed. They are getting paid to think and vote a certain way. just as any other law maker in the country.

let me try this again, since nobody seems able to answer this..

What, EXACTLY, in the Bill, will "bust unions" as claimed?

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.

I keep hearing it repeated, over and over, ad nauseum, that this Bill is a "union buster" but not a single person here, on Facebook, in the Comments sections of news articles, NOBODY has been able to point out to me SPECIFICALLY what in the Bill will result in what is claimed..

Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Roadie]

Just to clarify, the RTW bill doesn't eliminate unions, it just prevents unwilling workers from being forced to join the union, right? How could anyone be against having the right to choose for yourself whether you'll join a union or not? If they are as great as all the union guys say, they shouldn't have to force people to join the gang.

..nor would they have to worry about people leaving after the bill is passed.

 

[ATM]

Just to clarify, the RTW bill doesn't eliminate unions, it just prevents unwilling workers from being forced to join the union, right? How could anyone be against having the right to choose for yourself whether you'll join a union or not? If they are as great as all the union guys say, they shouldn't have to force people to join the gang.

Exactly. I haven't heard anyone opposed to RTW address these simple facts. They just keep drumming up and hammering the hype they have been handed by the unions themselves.

This is no threat to unions which provide an actual value to workers for their dues.

This is a threat to unions that remain in existence for the sole purpose of extorting workers money and funneling large sums of it to Democrats (who, in turn, maintain the force of monopoly needed for the unions to maintain this practice.)

 

[Roadie]

Exactly. I haven't heard anyone opposed to RTW address these simple facts. They just keep drumming up and hammering the hype they have been handed by the unions themselves.

This is no threat to unions which provide an actual value to workers for their dues.

This is a threat to unions that remain in existence for the sole purpose of extorting workers money and funneling large sums of it to Democrats (who, in turn, maintain the force of monopoly needed for the unions to maintain this practice.)

I quoted this before, but it reiterates the point you just made:

Abdul-Shakim Habazz said in his IndyStar article..

"I submit that the real RTW debate is about the unions' fear that if this legislation passes, members will run out the door and their decline would be hastened. Instead of unions fighting RTW, they should ask why their members would want to leave in the first place?"

 

[Doug]

let me try this again, since nobody seems able to answer this..

What, EXACTLY, in the Bill, will "bust unions" as claimed?



I keep hearing it repeated, over and over, ad nauseum, that this Bill is a "union buster" but not a single person here, on Facebook, in the Comments sections of news articles, NOBODY has been able to point out to me SPECIFICALLY what in the Bill will result in what is claimed..

Anyone? Anyone?

Today, because of OSHA and competition among employers for employees (which competition is aided by the employees mobility), unions exist, not to protect the workers, but to support the Democratic party.
Opposition to RTW is based on the assumption that no union provides enough benefit to its members that they would voluntarily be members.
Hence, RTW will destroy unions.

 

[hooky]

If unions are so fantastic and provide their membership with benefits that are unavailable by any other means, why would anyone who is in that union decide to leave?

Seems like the unions really have nothing to worry about...

 

[Kaiser]

Personally I think they are fooling themselves, the Dems that is if they think the voters of Indiana will vote this down. That is unless they bring the same bunch from Detroit they are bringing down to protest that is.

Nothing I read in nthis bill does anything to hinder a Union other than letting workers exercise free will

 

[Doug]

Personally I think they are fooling themselves, the Dems that is if they think the voters of Indiana will vote this down.

The referendum is a delaying tactic, pure and simple.
IF it goes to referendum, RTW will pass.
Then, the Democrats will challenge the referendum in court as being unconstitutional.
If they don't get to win, they stop the game.

 

[24Carat]

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.

I'm thinking more along the line of Honey and Toucan feathers!

 

[jsharmon7]

I mean no disrespect to union workers or union supporters, it just doesn't make sense to me to oppose this bill if you have faith in your product (union). The fact that some folks see the need to force people into a union tells me that they don't believe their product will stand on its own merits. If you think this will hurt unions then you must also believe that people don't really want to join unions. If they don't want to join the union, ask yourself "why not?" I just don't support forcing somebody to pay money to join a union that they don't want to join.

 

[Roadie]

Personally I think they are fooling themselves, the Dems that is if they think the voters of Indiana will vote this down. That is unless they bring the same bunch from Detroit they are bringing down to protest that is.

Nothing I read in nthis bill does anything to hinder a Union other than letting workers exercise free will

The referendum is a delaying tactic, pure and simple.
IF it goes to referendum, RTW will pass.
Then, the Democrats will challenge the referendum in court as being unconstitutional.
If they don't get to win, they stop the game.

First they have to prove a referendum is allowed under the Indiana Constitution, which, according to most non partisan opinions I have read, it isn't...
So basically, the Dems KNOW it's un-Consitutional, yet they are STILL blaming it on the Repubs. Combine that with the walkout, and it's just dirty all around.

 

[Roadie]

I mean no disrespect to union workers or union supporters, it just doesn't make sense to me to oppose this bill if you have faith in your product (union). The fact that some folks see the need to force people into a union tells me that they don't believe their product will stand on its own merits. If you think this will hurt unions then you must also believe that people don't really want to join unions. If they don't want to join the union, ask yourself "why not?" I just don't support forcing somebody to pay money to join a union that they don't want to join.

Exactly. How much faith can they have in their Unions if the believe choice will destroy them?

 

[ATM]

I wonder if the Dems think that union members wouldn't choose to send them money anyway (...if they had the right to choose).






They should be asking themselves why.