Right to Work Bill

[cordex]

[Regarding unions not being required to bargain on behalf of non-members] cite?

You're looking for this post: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...187775-right_to_work_bill-10.html#post2504359
Which references this:
Bad Arguments Against Right-to-Work - By James Sherk - The Corner - National Review Online

Federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members. The National Labor Relations Act allows unions to sign “members’ only” contracts that apply only to dues-paying members. This is legally uncontroversial. In 1938, the Supreme Court expressly upheld union’s ability to negotiate only on behalf of members. As William Gould, chairman of the NLRB under President Clinton, wrote, “the law now permits members-only bargaining for employees” — unions can exclude non-members from their contracts.

The rest of the article is good too. Give it a read.

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

If it doesn't, your labor isn't worth what you think it is.

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.

What do you mean it doesn't count? If a company wants to hire me and I want to work there but I can't take the job - even at a different wage than union members - unless I join the union ... isn't that being forced to join a union as a condition of employment?

Or are you trying to joust some strawman argument that no one is making?

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.

Did you type that with a straight face?

Plus, you keep saying that only a tiny number of people would leave their union anyway. If that's the case, how does fighting this law tooth and nail (as the unions and their bought-and-paid-for legislators have been doing) help do ... anything? If only a handful of people are going to walk away from their union and this law is really much ado about nothing, why are unions spending so much of their member's cash on fighting it? You've complained about all the legislative time wasted (personally, I prefer my government to be deadlocked, but that's just me) but this could have been all done and out the door if the unions didn't pay to bus in "protesters" and pressure the Democrats to run and hide.

figley, we've pretty much established that in your decade of following and studying this issue you haven't come up with a whole lot that wasn't a headline in the latest union flyer. What I'd like to know is this: what is your personal fear about what will happen if RTW passes in Indiana. Given your own reasoning that union membership will not decline significantly, what specifically are you worried is going to happen that will oppose the union's stated intention of "improving the lives of anyone who works for a wage"?

 

[dross]

Just stop and think for one minute.

What kind of organization cannot survive unless it uses force to maintain its membership?

In the early days, unions went on strike and then used force to keep the employer from hiring replacement workers.
Later, they passed laws and used the force of government to make people join and to force the employer to bargain with them.

All their power disappears as soon as you remove coercion from the equation.

There can't be anything healthy about that.

 

[ATM]

^Heck, that could even explain some of the [STRIKE]captives[/STRIKE] members' inclinations to jump to the unions' defense.

Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stschil]

^Heck, that could even explain some of the [STRIKE]captives[/STRIKE] members' inclinations to jump to the unions' defense.

Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Patty Hearst was a Union member????

 

[Doug]

Oh, one other thing...

If RTW goes to referendum, expect the Demoncraps to demand a committee to work out the exact wording.
Also, expect the Demoncraps to boycott the committee so that the referendum never gets on the ballot.

 

[Roadie]

Oh, one other thing...

If RTW goes to referendum, expect the Demoncraps to demand a committee to work out the exact wording.
Also, expect the Demoncraps to boycott the committee so that the referendum never gets on the ballot.

More delays, because first they would have to prove a referendum Constitutional..then do as you suggest above, all the while, blaming the Republicans.
Add this to the walk out and it is just MORE proof that they know they cant [stop it getting] passed. Its disgusting, childish, and a slap in the face to the 90% of their constituents that are not Union..

 

[flagtag]

More delays, because first they would have to prove a referendum Constitutional..then do as you suggest above, all the while, blaming the Republicans.
Add this to the walk out and it is just MORE proof that they know they cant get it passed. Its disgusting, childish, and a slap in the face to the 90% of their constituents that are not Union..

OR: Maybe they walked out because the know that it WILL pass? ("Gotta keep that dictatorial power ya know".)

 

[Roadie]

OR: Maybe they walked out because the know that it WILL pass? ("Gotta keep that dictatorial power ya know".)

That's what I meant, typo, thanks for catching it..

 

[1943Izzy]

Just remember this Right to Work Bill when we are all working for minimum wage with no benefits just to make enough to barely survive . This is just another way of eliminating the middle class.

 

[Roadie]

Just remember this Right to Work Bill when we are all working for minimum wage with no benefits just to make enough to barely survive . This is just another way of eliminating the middle class.

Did you even READ the rest of this thread before posting?

Please post PROOF of your assertion, not Union talking points please. Posts to the contrary have been made, with references and facts, but you would know that if you read the thread now, wouldnt you?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just remember this Right to Work Bill when we are all working for minimum wage with no benefits just to make enough to barely survive . This is just another way of eliminating the middle class.

Just remember 89% of the working people are not unions, according to all the non smokers in this state that is what matters, majority rules and all you know

 

[longbarrel]

Just tell why you want it or not? Make the reasons legitimate, Not what the Indiana afl/cio has to say or the National right to work committee. Look at the other 22 states that have it. And also, look at the 28 that do not. The quality of life (in financial terms)in those 28 states is much better. You tube it. there are economic professors and labor professors who are far more educated on the topic than we are, you know what they say?? It doesn't work. Come on people take politics out for just a moment and think of your friends, family, neighbors, etc..

 

[dross]

Just remember this Right to Work Bill when we are all working for minimum wage with no benefits just to make enough to barely survive . This is just another way of eliminating the middle class.

You have been misled by Marx's influence on economic theory. These beliefs have all been thoroughly debunked.

Unions hurt everyone except union members. They do this by limiting the labor pool artificially through the force of government. This drives up prices for everyone and limits the employability of non union members.

I have nothing against unions, btw, I'm only against the laws that provide them with an artificial advantage in the economic process.

 

[cordex]

Unions hurt everyone [STRIKE]except[/STRIKE] including union members.

FTFY.

Remember, when a union forces a company to pay more for labor than the labor produces, businesses go bust and (except where unions buy off the big-government politicians they love so much and make everyone's retirement plans take the hit while the unions laugh all the way to the bank) union jobs disappear.

 

[flagtag]

Before we became union, we were getting raises ranging from $.15 to $.60 a year (depending on the contract with the school district) and we had bonuses (of course, we couldn't miss too much work to get it). Now, the rate of pay is actually decreased for new hires, and the "older" employees are topped out. (Thank you union! ) BUT the union ALWAYS gets their dues!

Even with the new management - who were jerks (to put it mildly and stay on here), we still got good raises every year. The union isn't doing it's job for the employees. So, we are losing money and are dealing with the same problems we had BEFORE the union. We are ready to get rid of the union.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(Snipped for relevance)

Even with the new management - who were jerks (to put it mildly and stay on here), we still got good raises every year.The union isn't doing it's job for the employees. So, we are losing money and are dealing with the same problems we had BEFORE the union. We are ready to get rid of the union.

In addition, by promoting an adversarial relationship with their employers, unions frequently aren't helping their members because "by doing it's (sic) job for the employees", its often not helping the employer stay in business, which, again, isn't helping the members.

 

[flagtag]

So true! The 'rumor' around the garage now is that the company I work for will lose the contract and another company will be taking over. There have been a lot of complaints about ill trained drivers, being late, and about a certain abusive driver still being on the job after complaints from teachers, parents, etc. (this driver is also responsible for a HUGE race discrimination suit against the company - but she is still there while those who filed the complaint were forced to quit as part of the settlement.

The company has fallen apart and the union didn't help the dues paying members.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Just remember this Right to Work Bill when we are all working for minimum wage with no benefits just to make enough to barely survive . This is just another way of eliminating the middle class.

 

[goinggreyfast]

Did you even READ the rest of this thread before posting?

Please post PROOF of your assertion, not Union talking points please. Posts to the contrary have been made, with references and facts, but you would know that if you read the thread now, wouldnt you?

Thank you Roadie.

Here Izzy, read this document and then come back and debate till your fingers bleed, not just some canned response that you and the guys talked about in the breakroom. (BTW--Rachael Maddow videos don't count as facts.)

Have a nice day!

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

 

[RMOR]

Seems both sides can come up with economic numbers to support their claims. For me it has always been an issue of freedom. Why would men be protesting (vehemently) to give away freedoms? It doesn't make any sense to me. This bill doesn't eliminate unions, it simply gives working American men and women their God given freedom back, the freedom to choose who they associate with.

The truth is unions suspect that this is a death knell for them, and maybe they're right.[STRIKE] If[/STRIKE] when this thing passes, I believe a lot of free men will think twice about sending $40, $50, $60, or more, a month off to pad the union bosses wallet, they'll just keep it and spend it how they see fit. And I think they should have that choice.