Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 149
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    492

    Default 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    It is interesting to note that the "Right to Work" doesn't mean that you can go to a company and be guaranteed a job, and the income that goes with it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,210

    Default Re: What Is A 'Right to Work' State

    Why should it? How is any employer going to stay in business, if they're required to hire and provide an income to everyone who applies? If they have one opening and get 300 applications (not even remotely unlikely) and they're required to hire all 300 of them, what kind of an income do you think they'd be able to supply?

    Right to work refers to union membership. Period.

    http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    492

    Default Re: What Is A 'Right to Work' State

    I suppose, I am merely quibbling over how some legislation is worded. Wouldn't it be more accurate (from a truth in advertising perspective) to call such legislation, "A right to circumvent unions for political purposes for work state"?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,094

    Default Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    Daniel,
    Do you remember the movie "Reds"?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,210

    Default Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    Are you saying that people should be forced to join unions against their will?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    Are you saying that people should be forced to join unions against their will?
    I will agree that people should be allowed to not join the union as long as the union does not have to represent that person in any way, including letting that person negotiate for their own pay scale and benefits, and they are not entitled to any union provided benefits.

    I do not agree with the position that the employee must be represented by the union even though they do not pay to support that union (I know, it is not a free ride totally but it is still more than it ever should be). The employee should simply be left to hang and dry by the union when there is aproblem but the laws do not allow for that.

    So, yes, as it stands, I do believe that a person should be required to join a union if it is a union shop.

    cbg; have you been through a labor history class? It seems that most folks do not understand that many of our current labor laws are as a result of the unions lobbying for then. This includes child labor laws, a 40 hour work week with overtime after that, OSHA and the many other safety orgnizations that require an employer to provide a reasonably safe place of employment, workmans compensation, and on and on and on and....


    and yes, I am a union member currently (IBEW), and have been a member of the Teamsters, the UAW, and the Retail Clerks Union as well.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,210

    Default Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    I'm familiar with the history of labor unions, yes.

    And nowhere did I say that an employee who does not join the union should be represented by that union.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    I'm familiar with the history of labor unions, yes.

    And nowhere did I say that an employee who does not join the union should be represented by that union.
    I know you didn't and I did not mean to infer that you did. It is just that most "right to work"'ers do argue that the unions must still fight for the rights of the non-members, which by law, they must do, to an extent.

    So what happens is, yes, some people are forced to join unions against their will and although I generally do not support a person to be forced to so much of anything, until the required support of non-union members is removed, then yes, I do believe people should be forced to join a union, if there is one at their place of employment.

    One must always remember; the union is there because at one time, the majority of the workers voted to have union representation. Just as I must pay taxes I do not agree with and a million other things I must accept, regardless whether I want them or not, the majority had decided that is what they want and it should be they way it is until it is voted out.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,210

    Default Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    I partially agree and partially do not.

    I do not think that anyone should be forced to join a union who does not want to. In many ways some unions (note: I do not say all) have become what they were formed to prevent. There are good ones and there are bad ones; however, when you get a job you don't get to choose your union. The one that's there, is there until it's voted out. So since you can't choose your union, I don't believe you should be forced to join it.

    However, I think that if you opt out, you should not expect any representation or benefits from them. If you opt out, it's total; you're on your own.

    I realize this would mean a change to the law, and as I said I am well aware of the history of labor unions; why they were formed and what they have accomplished. But it's a completely different culture now and a lot of what was acceptable then, is no longer socially acceptable now. You can give the unions credit for this and you might even be right. But I don't think our current society is going to revert to that of a hundred years ago because someone is given a choice of whether to join a union or not.

    I am the granddaughter of a lifetime UAW worker; some of my husband's clients are labor unions; my first job after college was working with fifteen labor unions and their benefit plans; when my neighbor died I was very favorably impressed by how well the union looked after his family. I am not anti-union per se, even if I do work in HR. But being a Massachusetts liberal I am all in favor of individual choice.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,094

    Default Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment

    Sorry but just how exactly does one "opt out" of receiving benefits of unions by not joining when as an employee they already receive all the benefits that Union has worked to achieve?

    I think as a member of a union you can legally choose not to pay dues for anything other than costs of the union collective bargaining.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Discharged for Tardiness After a Work Injury, Defective Work Boots
    By 3toesleft in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-16-2011, 05:12 PM
  2. Disabilities and Accommodation: Work-Related Disability, Return to Work and the Interactive Process
    By desternies in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 07:50 AM
  3. Claiming Benefits: Can I Leave Work for Failure to Address Concerns of Work-Related Wrist Pain
    By tpro123 in forum Worker's Compensation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-20-2010, 08:29 AM
  4. Compensation and Overtime: Unpaid for Pre-Employment Training and Post-Employment Mandated Activities
    By focus123 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-26-2010, 03:29 PM
  5. Getting Fired: Work For Rent - Let Go By Letter (by The Way, Yesterday We Terminated Your Employment
    By Disneyland Fred in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2008, 05:31 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources