Right to work in Missouri

[Wiseacre]

Missouri is trying to pass a right to work law where an employee would have the option to join a union and pay dues or not. 22 states have right to work laws already, and some other states are also working on their own reforms. Missouri has been in a job slump since Jan 09, with an unemployment rate at 9.1% that is slightly above the national average of 8.8%. There are several right to work states surrounding Missouri, which have lower unemployment rates, and their 0.6% decrease in employment in 2010 made it the 3rd worst state in the country for job losses.

Mizzou has a dem governor but a veto proof senate, but the unions are trying to pick off some GOP state senators who received union campaign contributions or endorsements from them. They have already passed a paycheck protection act earlier this month that requires employees to consent to have their dues deducted from their paychecks. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Given the choice, most union members routinely opt out of unions. In Indiana when Mitch Daniels used an executive order to give public employees the right to opt out, about 95% did exactly that. Unions of course are up in arms, we can probably expect a lot of demonstrations in Missouri fairly soon.

Seems to me an individual should have the right to orgainize a union in the private sector, but they should also have the right to opt out if they so choose without losing their job. Can't see how anybody can have a problem with that.

 

[Avatar4321]

should be interesting. I think it's ridiculous that you can be forced to join a union against your will.

 

[The T]

should be interesting. I think it's ridiculous that you can be forced to join a union against your will.

It's an abridgement of Liberty, and should be challanged early and often.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Missouri is trying to pass a right to work law where an employee would have the option to join a union and pay dues or not. 22 states have right to work laws already, and some other states are also working on their own reforms. Missouri has been in a job slump since Jan 09, with an unemployment rate at 9.1% that is slightly above the national average of 8.8%. There are several right to work states surrounding Missouri, which have lower unemployment rates, and their 0.6% decrease in employment in 2010 made it the 3rd worst state in the country for job losses.

Mizzou has a dem governor but a veto proof senate, but the unions are trying to pick off some GOP state senators who received union campaign contributions or endorsements from them. They have already passed a paycheck protection act earlier this month that requires employees to consent to have their dues deducted from their paychecks. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Given the choice, most union members routinely opt out of unions. In Indiana when Mitch Daniels used an executive order to give public employees the right to opt out, about 95% did exactly that. Unions of course are up in arms, we can probably expect a lot of demonstrations in Missouri fairly soon.

Seems to me an individual should have the right to orgainize a union in the private sector, but they should also have the right to opt out if they so choose without losing their job. Can't see how anybody can have a problem with that.

In a related story....

February 6, 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13502, which requires the use of union labor on federal projects valued at over $25 million. Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects | The White House

a. PLA’s promote feather-bedding and cut off the 86.9 % of private sector union workers who don’t belong to unions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Missouri is trying to pass a right to work law where an employee would have the option to join a union and pay dues or not. 22 states have right to work laws already, and some other states are also working on their own reforms. Missouri has been in a job slump since Jan 09, with an unemployment rate at 9.1% that is slightly above the national average of 8.8%. There are several right to work states surrounding Missouri, which have lower unemployment rates, and their 0.6% decrease in employment in 2010 made it the 3rd worst state in the country for job losses.

Mizzou has a dem governor but a veto proof senate, but the unions are trying to pick off some GOP state senators who received union campaign contributions or endorsements from them. They have already passed a paycheck protection act earlier this month that requires employees to consent to have their dues deducted from their paychecks. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Given the choice, most union members routinely opt out of unions. In Indiana when Mitch Daniels used an executive order to give public employees the right to opt out, about 95% did exactly that. Unions of course are up in arms, we can probably expect a lot of demonstrations in Missouri fairly soon.

Seems to me an individual should have the right to orgainize a union in the private sector, but they should also have the right to opt out if they so choose without losing their job. Can't see how anybody can have a problem with that.

I really don't know why Wisconsin and Ohio Republicans didn't try and pursue Right to Work legislation instead of what they ended up doing. I don't think the fall out would have been as bad from the public if they had.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh is that what "right to work" means? Not actually a right to "work" but a right to "choose union or not". I get it now.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Oh is that what "right to work" means? Not actually a right to "work" but a right to "choose union or not". I get it now.

It means you can't be forced to join a union.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh is that what "right to work" means? Not actually a right to "work" but a right to "choose union or not". I get it now.

It means you can't be forced to join a union.

True...but they must contribute a sum to unions for the negotiations that benefit all.
This usually comes so close to 100% that it hardly pays to opt out.

And, a union member can ask for rebate on political contributions by the union.

"On April 13, 1992, in what many consider to be nothing more than an act of political opportunism, President Bush issued Executive Order 12800, which requires all federal contractors to inform their employees of their "Beck rights." The order stems from a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Communication Workers of America v. Beck, in which the Court declared that employees forced to pay union dues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) do not have to contribute to a union's partisan political activities. The Communication Workers of America had been using as much as 79 percent of Harry Beck's dues for such activities, almost all in support of Democratic party candidates."
The Permissible Uses of Forced Union Dues: From Hanson to Beck


The point? Union membership is not as onerous as it seems.

 

[marv]

Not being forced to join, or being able to opt out of a union, is the way to go. It's a freedom of association thing.

 

[Anachronism]

All that I have to say on this is..... If it hadn't been for the Union that I'm part of, I would likely be unemployed right now. The company I work for is cutting TWENTY PERCENT of its Non-Union workforce in the last/next six months. Not a single Union job is being lost. I may not agree with everything the Union does, or its political stances, but right now I'm pretty damn happy that I am in one.

I'll trade $17.47 (about 35 minutes worth of my weeky wages) a week to keep from losing my entire paycheck, thank you very much.

 

[The T]

Missouri is trying to pass a right to work law where an employee would have the option to join a union and pay dues or not. 22 states have right to work laws already, and some other states are also working on their own reforms. Missouri has been in a job slump since Jan 09, with an unemployment rate at 9.1% that is slightly above the national average of 8.8%. There are several right to work states surrounding Missouri, which have lower unemployment rates, and their 0.6% decrease in employment in 2010 made it the 3rd worst state in the country for job losses.

Mizzou has a dem governor but a veto proof senate, but the unions are trying to pick off some GOP state senators who received union campaign contributions or endorsements from them. They have already passed a paycheck protection act earlier this month that requires employees to consent to have their dues deducted from their paychecks. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Given the choice, most union members routinely opt out of unions. In Indiana when Mitch Daniels used an executive order to give public employees the right to opt out, about 95% did exactly that. Unions of course are up in arms, we can probably expect a lot of demonstrations in Missouri fairly soon.

Seems to me an individual should have the right to orgainize a union in the private sector, but they should also have the right to opt out if they so choose without losing their job. Can't see how anybody can have a problem with that.

In a related story....

February 6, 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13502, which requires the use of union labor on federal projects valued at over $25 million. Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects | The White House

a. PLA’s promote feather-bedding and cut off the 86.9 % of private sector union workers who don’t belong to unions.

And by this order? Obama shows that he is all for the continuation of the Money Laundering that HE benefits from.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys realize that "right to work" laws are government interference in private contracts, right?

Aren't you guys against that?

 

[The T]

You guys realize that "right to work" laws are government interference in private contracts, right?

Aren't you guys against that?

Right to work Laws are defending the liberty of the Individual to be able to work when and where he/she wishes without being coerced into something they may not agree with.

Learn the term liberty.

Your argument is BOGUS.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys realize that "right to work" laws are government interference in private contracts, right?

Aren't you guys against that?

Right to work Laws are defending the liberty of the Individual to be able to work when and where he/she wishes without being coerced into something they may not agree with.

Learn the term liberty.

Your argument is BOGUS.

"Right to work" laws are the government stepping in, and declaring what clauses can or cannot be in private contracts.

Unions are a product of a free market. According to you guys, the government should never interfere in the free market.

 

[The T]

You guys realize that "right to work" laws are government interference in private contracts, right?

Aren't you guys against that?

Right to work Laws are defending the liberty of the Individual to be able to work when and where he/she wishes without being coerced into something they may not agree with.

Learn the term liberty.

Your argument is BOGUS.

"Right to work" laws are the government stepping in, and declaring what clauses can or cannot be in private contracts.

Unions are a product of a free market. According to you guys, the government should never interfere in the free market.

They are stepping IN and protecting the individual.

Get used to it sport.

 

[jillian]

You guys realize that "right to work" laws are government interference in private contracts, right?

Aren't you guys against that?

Right to work Laws are defending the liberty of the Individual to be able to work when and where he/she wishes without being coerced into something they may not agree with.

Learn the term liberty.

Your argument is BOGUS.

"Right to work" laws are the government stepping in, and declaring what clauses can or cannot be in private contracts.

Unions are a product of a free market. According to you guys, the government should never interfere in the free market.

unless, of course, it's to protect corporatists.

or socialize losses and capitalize profits.

you know the drill.

just like they love small government... unless it's doing what they want it to... like invade women's bodies.

 

[The T]

Right to work Laws are defending the liberty of the Individual to be able to work when and where he/she wishes without being coerced into something they may not agree with.

Learn the term liberty.

Your argument is BOGUS.

"Right to work" laws are the government stepping in, and declaring what clauses can or cannot be in private contracts.

Unions are a product of a free market. According to you guys, the government should never interfere in the free market.

unless, of course, it's to protect corporatists.

or socialize losses and capitalize profits.

you know the drill.

just like they love small government... unless it's doing what they want it to... like invade women's bodies.

It isn't protecting the corportists Jillian...

Get a grip. NO ONE should be forced to join a Union if they don't choose to...

Guess individual rights mean zero to you idiots as you scream that you do.

Unions are past tense. Have been for awhile. It is a Game now that influences politics, and politicians...while the people pay for the shenanigans with lost jobs, overbloated pensions, and everything else that goes with it.

It's a scheme...Money laundering that benefits the DNC...and in particuliar this POTUS as he launched his Relection tour...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Right to work Laws are defending the liberty of the Individual to be able to work when and where he/she wishes without being coerced into something they may not agree with.

Learn the term liberty.

Your argument is BOGUS.

"Right to work" laws are the government stepping in, and declaring what clauses can or cannot be in private contracts.

Unions are a product of a free market. According to you guys, the government should never interfere in the free market.

They are stepping IN and protecting the individual.

Get used to it sport.

Oh, ok.

So it's ok for the government to intervene and undermine the free market, as long as it's for something that you personally agree with?

 

[The T]

"Right to work" laws are the government stepping in, and declaring what clauses can or cannot be in private contracts.

Unions are a product of a free market. According to you guys, the government should never interfere in the free market.

They are stepping IN and protecting the individual.

Get used to it sport.

Oh, ok.

So it's ok for the government to intervene and undermine the free market, as long as it's for something that you personally agree with?

Government's FIRST priority is to protect the Individual...protect Liberty.

Sorry that you demonstrate that you have no clue what that is...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Right to work" laws are the government stepping in, and declaring what clauses can or cannot be in private contracts.

Unions are a product of a free market. According to you guys, the government should never interfere in the free market.

unless, of course, it's to protect corporatists.

or socialize losses and capitalize profits.

you know the drill.

just like they love small government... unless it's doing what they want it to... like invade women's bodies.

It isn't protecting the corportists Jillian...

Get a grip. NO ONE should be forced to join a Union if they don't choose to...

Guess individual rights mean zero to you idiots as you scream that you do.

Unions are past tense. Have been for awhile. It is a Game now that influences politics, and politicians...while the people pay for the shenanigans with lost jobs, overbloated pensions, and everything else that goes with it.

It's a scheme...Money laundering that benefits the DNC...and in particuliar this POTUS as he launched his Relection tour...

No one is "forced" to join a union, they're perfectly free to go find another job. Isn't that what you guys always say when people complain about their salaries?

Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? Why won't you let the market decide on closed vs. open shops?