Right to Work Bill

[irishfan]

There is a disconnect here.

In the free market, I ought to be able to join a company with a union contract and be able to negotiate my own wages/benefits etc. When the government is preventing me from doing so, that is an overstepping of the bounds of government. "workers rights" laws that interfere with a company's ability to handle employment as they see fit are also ridiculous for that reason. The government does not need to hold our hands and help us keep our jobs. We should be able to keep our jobs fairly in competition with others in the market, or we won't have them. That is how you have productive, healthy businesses.

My real issue with the current job enviornment is the ability of an employer to terminate a person without any just cause. If a person is a deadbeat, poor attendence, unsafe, or whatever then that is justified and I have no issue with that. However, when a employer can just walk out to a shop floor and tell everyone they are taking a 20% cut just because they want to do it then that is what breeds unions. Also, it is not right for an employer to be able to fire a person because they have a safety issue with a job. It has happened and does happen still to this day and before you cry OSHA you might want to think about what the small odds are they will ever see you or the unsafe work conditions

The first argument from most people will be that you should just quit and find another job if you don't like the situation your current one is putting you in. On that same note you can quit your current union job if you don't like paying union dues or better yet go to a direct non-union competitor with your skills and out perform the union factory. It should work just fine according to most here with their free market fantasy but it doesn't work that way in real life and it is not the unions fault.

If you think back 20-30 years ago you did not see schools being shut down and teachers getting layed off because there was a huge tax base paying into the system. This tax base was from good paying industry jobs rather then the low paying garbage industry jobs we have making up a large portion of the formerly middle class. When this country went with NAFTA and even more manufacturing in China before and after NAFTA is when it all really went downhill.

 

[Bull]

Lots of talk going both ways on this, but here's my one take on the picture below.

Some should have followed those buses when they left to see if these people was herded in from out of state, or Indiana residents bused in to ease parking and gas issues.

If it's Indiana residents, then they have a legitimate beef being here, if they're not, well their asses need to go back to where they live because they have no right trying to dictate what is made an Indiana law.

I will agree to get rid of the out of state help in these buses when you get rid of the money that is coming from out of our state going into the campaign funds (and pockets) of the politicians that are pushing this rtw crap down our throat. DEAL ?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

My real issue with the current job enviornment is the ability of an employer to terminate a person without any just cause. If a person is a deadbeat, poor attendence, unsafe, or whatever then that is justified and I have no issue with that. However, when a employer can just walk out to a shop floor and tell everyone they are taking a 20% cut just because they want to do it then that is what breeds unions. Also, it is not right for an employer to be able to fire a person because they have a safety issue with a job. It has happened and does happen still to this day and before you cry OSHA you might want to think about what the small odds are they will ever see you or the unsafe work conditions

The first argument from most people will be that you should just quit and find another job if you don't like the situation your current one is putting you in. On that same note you can quit your current union job if you don't like paying union dues or better yet go to a direct non-union competitor with your skills and out perform the union factory. It should work just fine according to most here with their free market fantasy but it doesn't work that way in real life and it is not the unions fault.

If you think back 20-30 years ago you did not see schools being shut down and teachers getting layed off because there was a huge tax base paying into the system. This tax base was from good paying industry jobs rather then the low paying garbage industry jobs we have making up a large portion of the formerly middle class. When this country went with NAFTA and even more manufacturing in China before and after NAFTA is when it all really went downhill.

RE: your comments in red above: The compact between a worker and an employer only works - as dross explained upthread - when both are free to modify it or leave; the employer to discharge workers who don't meet the required standards and the employees free to leave to find better working conditions. The vagaries of the overall employment picture dictate that, under a "free market", there will be natural fluctuations in the availability of jobs, workers, and employers. At times it will be relatively easy for employees to leave an unsatisfactory work situation for a better one and at other times it will be more difficult.

When government gets involved on one side or the other, however, the "free market" can't work; employees are either compelled to accept unsatisfactory work conditions (governments using police as "strike breakers" comes to mind) or government ties the hands of employers' ability to deal with the unions by siding with the unions against them (the current state of affairs). When unions held up the Big Three Automakers over increased wages and benefits over the past thirty years, they succeeded in bankrupting two of the three. Had the government not interceded, GM and Chrysler would have, justifiably, closed their doors, as has happened in the US Steel Industry, and elsewhere. Where the government intervenes on either side, market forces can't work and either Business or Labor takes an unfair advantage.

In your example of schools being shut down and teachers being laid off, consider that it's not only a matter of decreased tax base, but an effect of unions and "management" (just another side of the NEA and similar organizations in this case) refusing to acknowledge market forces (changes in demographics and oversupply of teachers as well as increasing plant costs which cannot be truly justified based on budget forecasts). The only unions which have increased over the past 20 years or so have been government-employee unions. In both cases, you have unions which advocate for increased numbers and more pay and, unlike the Steelworkers or the Autoworkers, politicians can just keep raising taxes to cover the increasing expenses. Just making government employees and teachers pay for part of their healthcare and retirement apparently saved enough money for various jurisdictions in Wisconsin, that police, fire, and teacher layoffs were apparently averted.

At some point, the unions must be forced to compete with the rest of the labor market. In areas where skilled tradesmen are necessary, unions will probably maintain their positions and wages, but elsewhere, they will likely not be able to compete - and rightly so.

Let unions attempt to organize as they will - but let's stamp out their attempts to intimidate employers and employees - and the opposition on the street and at the Statehouse as well.

 

[Oldbird13]

Well said!

 

[JohnP82]

Union member here with mixed feelings, but in the end I have to say I do support the right to work bill.

I can't say for sure whether I would withdraw from my union or not, but it would be nice to have the choice.

IMO, like most things that were started with the best intentions, unions have been corrupted too much and now many times do more harm than good.

 

[RockofStrength]

My real issue with the current job enviornment is the ability of an employer to terminate a person without any just cause. If a person is a deadbeat, poor attendence, unsafe, or whatever then that is justified and I have no issue with that. However, when a employer can just walk out to a shop floor and tell everyone they are taking a 20% cut just because they want to do it then that is what breeds unions. Also, it is not right for an employer to be able to fire a person because they have a safety issue with a job. It has happened and does happen still to this day and before you cry OSHA you might want to think about what the small odds are they will ever see you or the unsafe work conditions

You are costing the company more time, money, material, PR, legal trouble or manpower than the company is willing to pay to keep you and your expertise at your job and are thus fired. That is just. You are hired to help make these people money, of which they agree to pay you a given sum that you are willing to work for. That. Is. It. If you are failing to provide sufficient benefit to the company, regardless of your work ethic or how well you perform, you can be fired and it is just that you be so.

Safety rights are a fickle beast, given the intersection of a person's right to choose to work in an unsafe environment and the fact that you should not be able to put a man into a dangerous situation at work without his prior informed consent.

IMO there is nothing wrong with unions. Being able to voice complaints about wages, among other things like job conditions and quotas as a large group is definitely an excellent idea when dealing with managers and CEOs. That is 100% free market in action. I have respect for those who will peaceably and respectfully negotiate for what they want/need in a business arrangement. I think they've shot themselves in the foot lately in the automotive industries in particular, and loathe their choice in political support but that's their choice.

I am for the freedom to make any agreement between two or more parties that does not violate the rights of a party outside of the agreement. If a business chooses to have a closed shop (or union shop etc), and a union agrees (or vice-versa) then they should be able to have one. However, that assumes that unions and businesses have roughly similar protection and/or empowerment under the law, which is very much lacking. At this point a business can be held captive by the current legal favoritism towards unions (which is not unlike the favorite position once enjoyed by several industries back when unions were first formed) and forced into these contracts. Right-to-work, though distasteful and unneeded in a truly free-market environment, is needed as a balancing of power in our current corporate cronyism model.

The other option would be to reduce the legal powers of unions...something I believe the unions would see as their personal Ragnarok. Could be wrong.

The first argument from most people will be that you should just quit and find another job if you don't like the situation your current one is putting you in. On that same note you can quit your current union job if you don't like paying union dues or better yet go to a direct non-union competitor with your skills and out perform the union factory. It should work just fine according to most here with their free market fantasy but it doesn't work that way in real life and it is not the unions fault.

Already addressed in my point about differing empowerment under the law, I think.

If you think back 20-30 years ago you did not see schools being shut down and teachers getting layed off because there was a huge tax base paying into the system. This tax base was from good paying industry jobs rather then the low paying garbage industry jobs we have making up a large portion of the formerly middle class. When this country went with NAFTA and even more manufacturing in China before and after NAFTA is when it all really went downhill.

The fact that our nation as a whole has proceeded to spend itself into oblivion with stupid garbage, in addition to the enormous burden of supporting the older generation as they age and a growing number of welfare parasites is why we are closing schools, reducing state employment levels and so on. We have been kicking the can down the road since the Great Depression and the can finally turned around and bit this nation in the rear. We have IT departments, technology companies that make literally billions a year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the technology sector alone that easily replace whatever the manufacturing sector paid in taxes. That's not even mentioning the growth in sales, marketing, and advertising sectors as a result of improved techniques and expanded needs as our nation continued to enter the global markets.


The simple fact is that 20-30 years of compounded interest on debt, horrendous spending, and a welfare system that is so deep in Crazytown it's embarrassing to look at... No amount of growth can compete with it, and the artificial bubble of growth that previous generations experienced is now being compensated with a fall that will exceed the heights of wealth they reached, as part of the inevitable balancing that the market is bringing about. We could bring back all those manufacturing jobs, (and it would kill the businesses that provide them; they outsourced to survive the ever rising wages here.) and it still wouldn't compete with the flood of debt that is crushing public and private finances on a daily basis.

 

[dross]

My real issue with the current job enviornment is the ability of an employer to terminate a person without any just cause.

My issue with the job environment is how a key employee, vital to the business, can just leave without just cause.

If a person is a deadbeat, poor attendence, unsafe, or whatever then that is justified and I have no issue with that.

If the the employer doesn't pay what he agreed, or doesn't enforce the rules fairly, or is unsafe, or whatever then that is justified and I have no issue with that.

However, when a employer can just walk out to a shop floor and tell everyone they are taking a 20% cut just because they want to do it then that is what breeds unions.

However, whe an employee can just band together with other employees and tell the employer they want an X percent increase or they'll leave just because they want it then that is what breeds bankruptcy and businesss moving to other locations and overseas.

Also, it is not right for an employer to be able to fire a person because they have a safety issue with a job.

It's not right for an employee to quit just because the employer has a reasonable policy that the employee doesn't like.

 

[irishfan]

My issue with the job environment is how a key employee, vital to the business, can just leave without just cause.



If the the employer doesn't pay what he agreed, or doesn't enforce the rules fairly, or is unsafe, or whatever then that is justified and I have no issue with that.



However, whe an employee can just band together with other employees and tell the employer they want an X percent increase or they'll leave just because they want it then that is what breeds bankruptcy and businesss moving to other locations and overseas.



It's not right for an employee to quit just because the employer has a reasonable policy that the employee doesn't like.

If you are going to quote something then why don't you quote the full section rather then taking pieces to try to spin your point. I haven't came into this section for a long time and until now I almost forgot why. You are on par with the MSM with your clipping statements to justify what you want to say.

Good luck to all who continue this debate

 

[jfw46544]

To me, in a nutshell, having to pay a union a ransom to get or keep a job is wrong. It is time that the legislature start doing what is right for Indiana.

 

[CarmelHP]

To me, in a nutshell, having to pay a union a ransom to get or keep a job is wrong. It is time that the legislature start doing what is right for Indiana.

The unions are about creating barriers to entry to the workforce. They lay claim to classes of employers and classes of work (like government contracts) then deny that work to anyone who does not pay them tribute. I see why it is a hard time defending what they do; it's indefensible.

 

[UncleMike]

The unions are about creating barriers to entry to the workforce. They lay claim to classes of employers and classes of work (like government contracts) then deny that work to anyone who does not pay them tribute. I see why it is a hard time defending what they do; it's indefensible.

^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Classic]

Being forced to join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment is just plain wrong. Like many other things, if it was a good deal it wouldn't be mandatory, folks would be climbing all over each other to join. Bringing in busloads of protestors, giving millions to Obama and his gun control loving associates and disrupting the livelihood of non-union folks have made the whole union idea wear very thin with me even before the latest anti-Right-to-Work commercials that completely misinform on the issue.

 

[Doug]

When my wife and I were both working, we each had the option of joining the union at our respective jobs. Union membership was not required at either job.
She joined her union because one of the benefits was professional liability insurance and she wanted the insurance.
The union at my job offered no benefits that I thought were worth the dues, so I didn't join.

This is what the right to work law would do for everyone

 

[UncleMike]

When my wife and I were both working, we each had the option of joining the union at our respective jobs. Union membership was not required at either job.
She joined her union because one of the benefits was professional liability insurance and she wanted the insurance.
The union at my job offered no benefits that I thought were worth the dues, so I didn't join.

This is what the right to work law would do for everyone

After watching the Union goons spout their string of BS on the local news today it became clear that the Unions don't want people to have the right to choose.
They demand that everyone pay them their tithe and shut up.
Their partners in theft, the Democratic Party, who are their enforcers in the Government, are willing to destroy the States economic base, exactly like they did in Michigan, to keep the cash flowing to their Union handlers.

 

[PistolBob]

Most national labor unions give money to the democrats and the republicans...at the same time. If you want to own the lawmakers, you need to buy them all.

 

[flagtag]

I am a Teamster. That said, we are looking for other options. Teamsters does hardly anything for us unless it a MAJOR issue. (Then they determine how THEY can benefit from it.) Ours is a closed shop. We got them in ONLY because new management was playing some serious games with certain people, and letting others get away with "murder".

Our contract will be up in about a year, then we will try to find someone else to represent us.

I hope you get your Right to Work. Good luck!

 

[dross]

If you are going to quote something then why don't you quote the full section rather then taking pieces to try to spin your point. I haven't came into this section for a long time and until now I almost forgot why. You are on par with the MSM with your clipping statements to justify what you want to say.

Good luck to all who continue this debate

I went back and read your entire post. Your implication seems to be that I took your statements out of context. I don't see how anything you said in the rest of your post changes what I pulled out to respond to. I could respond to every point in your post, but if you'll be so kind as to tell me what you'd like a response to specifically, I'll happily do so.

 

[dross]

Most national labor unions give money to the democrats and the republicans...at the same time. If you want to own the lawmakers, you need to buy them all.

About 90 percent of the dollars unions donate to political parties goes to democrats.

 

[Darral27]

A bunch of former union people that I work with pay no attention to anything other than what directly affects them. I work for a home respiratory company and therefore see alot of older people in a area where everybody used to work for GM. When I hear these people talk about the job market these days and that their kids cannot find local jobs it drives me crazy. These people just do not realize it is the fault of them and their unions that this has happened. They knew when they were bargaining for more and more that it would not be able to last forever. If they would have just taken what was fair and kicked in a little for their own pensions and a little for benefits these plants would still be running and their children would have good, local jobs to get. Unions where needed in the past but they are long past their useful life. Time to go right to work and help the state grow and try to provide a good future for our children.

 

[clarky51]

Right to Work! Unions outlived their purpose long ago. Maybe in a few special circumstances they're still useful but in general they ruin industry and inflate the cost of labor. Auto industry bailout anyone? Which ultimately punished the taxpayers. What did union dues pay for in 2011? Occupy Wall Street - yea that was effective...saracastically stated. It was funny in the news how no one really knew what they were occupying it for. They all had a different agenda.