Wisconsin to be 25th RTW state!

[DCal430]

Like I said, if a Worker despises Unions, they already have the choice of joining a non-Union workplace. No freedom has been gained.

That is like saying we should have no minimum wage because workers are free to go else where.

 

[sandorski]

That is nothing like taking from the employees pay check
Again money they pay taxes on, and giving it to union
What unions do is no different than raiding my bank account.

An Employee has the choice to not joining a Union workplace. If they want the benefits of a Unionized workplace, they have to pay the dues.

 

[sandorski]

That is like saying we should have no minimum wage because workers are free to go else where.

No, it's not.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Like I said, if a Worker despises Unions, they already have the choice of joining a non-Union workplace. No freedom has been gained.

Not if they already had a job at a place they liked. Yes, the option exists for a worker to choose a job that doesn't require joining a union, but you mentioning that proves it limits choice for workers. Now they can apply where they want and not be forced into a union. It's MORE freedom for workers. MORE choice for them. There is no way to claim otherwise.

 

[DCal430]

An Employee has the choice to not joining a Union workplace. If they want the benefits of a Unionized workplace, they have to pay the dues.

Dues should be limited to collective bargaining purposes, not giving money to politicians.

 

[sandorski]

Not if they already had a job at a place they liked. Yes, the option exists for a worker to choose a job that doesn't require joining a union, but you mentioning that proves it limits choice for workers. Now they can apply where they want and not be forced into a union. It's MORE freedom for workers. MORE choice for them. There is no way to claim otherwise.

It is an attempt to take away Unions altogether. Stop with the doublespeak already.

 

[DCal430]

No, it's not.

Yes it is, it is exactly the same. You don't have to work at a union shop, you don't have to work at a job that pays minimum wage.

 

[sandorski]

Dues should be limited to collective bargaining purposes, not giving money to politicians.

That's your opinion. Personally I feel that no Organization, Union or Corp should be giving money to Politicians. However, as long as one is permitted, the other should be as well. The reason is to level the playing field between Employer and Employee.

 

[sandorski]

Yes it is, it is exactly the same. You don't have to work at a union shop, you don't have to work at a job that pays minimum wage.

Well, you don't have to work at a Job that pays Minimum Wage, but that's not what you were arguing.

 

[DCal430]

Well, you don't have to work at a Job that pays Minimum Wage, but that's not what you were arguing.

If a job pays $1 an hour, no one is forced to work there
No need for minimum wage. What you are saying about unions is no different.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It is an attempt to take away Unions altogether. Stop with the doublespeak already.

Uh, no. Allowing workers to have a choice may result in unions going away but that's not the legislation's fault, it's the union's. Do a better job and people might want to join but forcing everyone to join just to have a job doesn't create any good will. It's extortion.

 

[werepossum]

They can do those things without stealing money from employees to give to politicians.

If you think it is OK for unions to do this then you should have no problem with private companies taking their employees money, money they pay taxes on, to give to republicans. Because no one has to work at any job.

I don't say this to you very often, but damned good post.

It doesn't always bring better wages, benefits, and conditions - sometimes it brings layoffs, outsourcing, etc.
Also, you are correct in RTW states. no one will be forced to join a union if they apply for/take a job they want to do. It's freedom for workers! You know... "choice" sort of like allowing workers to have a say in how they spend thier paycheck

Here in Chattanooga the UAW tried to unionize the VW plant workers and got caught having promised the northern plants to cut wages at VW to match unionized plants' wages.

Unions are a last century construct, like the American middle class.

Doesn't that depend on the union and the employer? Trade unions in my experience deliver a lot of value both to the employee and to the employer. Even labor unions have their place; I know several places whose work forces are almost entirely illegals. I bet their former employees would have appreciated some union protection.

I applaud Wisconsin's progress, but let's not assume that all unions are bad all the time. Yes, many of them do bad things. This is true of virtually any enterprise built of humans - we're such twats.

 

[glenn1]

I don't say this to you very often, but damned good post.


Here in Chattanooga the UAW tried to unionize the VW plant workers and got caught having promised the northern plants to cut wages at VW to match unionized plants' wages.


Doesn't that depend on the union and the employer? Trade unions in my experience deliver a lot of value both to the employee and to the employer. Even labor unions have their place; I know several places whose work forces are almost entirely illegals. I bet their former employees would have appreciated some union protection.

I applaud Wisconsin's progress, but let's not assume that all unions are bad all the time. Yes, many of them do bad things. This is true of virtually any enterprise built of humans - we're such twats.

Which union is likely to be a better value to employees, one where membership is compulsory or the other where they need to earn the employee's loyalty? Those on the left who oppose RTW, why would you want to give unions monopsony power?

 

[DCal430]

In terms of the public sectors, unions offer very little. Remember we public sector employees are given strong protections on job security and wages by the 14th amendment. The courts have applied a broad interpretation of the due process clause when it comes to public employees.

 

[sandorski]

If a job pays $1 an hour, no one is forced to work there
No need for minimum wage. What you are saying about unions is no different.

I have absolutely no idea how you have drawn this conclusion.

 

[werepossum]

Which union is likely to be a better value to employees, one where membership is compulsory or the other where they need to earn the employee's loyalty? Those on the left who oppose RTW, why would you want to give unions monopsony power?

Definitely the one that has to earn its members.

I have no problem with union members negotiating to persuade an employer to be a union shop and hire through the union. I have a huge problem with making such behavior mandatory. Both the employer and the employee should be free to make their best possible deal, including whether or not to be union.

 

[sao123]

If a job pays $1 an hour, no one is forced to work there
No need for minimum wage. What you are saying about unions is no different.

Somehow when businesses get the opportunity to set the fair market for their wares or services and its called capitalism.

Let the labor pool try to get the same fair market value, and all of a sudden its communism.

Collectively all employers are a monopoly. Everyone is forced to work somewhere. Monopolies must be regulated, thus minimum wage.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just more of the usual anti-democratic aspects of the right wing. Union workplaces are created by a majority vote of workers. They do that because of a perceived need for more power to deal with management. In right to starve states, it doesn't work nearly as well for workers overall because there are always plenty of boneheads who believe that management sees them as something special rather than as replaceable units in a machine. By refusing to participate, they weaken the bargaining power of the union and thus worsen their own circumstances. They can't see that, of course, because freedumb is more important to them.

 

[Double Trouble]

Good move, I applaud any state that gets rid of forcing people to join the union.

Ultimately, if the union is beneficial beyond what it costs the workers, then the workers can join the union. If not, they don't need to be forced.

That's called choice, and more choices is always better.

 

[soundforbjt]

Just because I'm not familiar with RTW states, do the workers that choose not to join the union get the same pay & benefits as the union members?

 

[Drako]

Just because I'm not familiar with RTW states, do the workers that choose not to join the union get the same pay & benefits as the union members?

Yep, but they don't have to pay the union (mob bribe) dues.

 

[Jhhnn]

Good move, I applaud any state that gets rid of forcing people to join the union.

Ultimately, if the union is beneficial beyond what it costs the workers, then the workers can join the union. If not, they don't need to be forced.

That's called choice, and more choices is always better.

Even if it's just more bad choices, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Just because I'm not familiar with RTW states, do the workers that choose not to join the union get the same pay & benefits as the union members?

Of course they do. They're called free riders in polite company.

 

[soundforbjt]

Of course they do. They're called free riders in polite company.

Thanks, that's my thought as well.

 

[DCal430]

Thanks, that's my thought as well.

There is a difference between money for bargaining, and money to give to politicians.