Right to work in Missouri

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

"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.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

 

[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.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

Indeed. The LOCAL governments by having these laws protects the individual in their quest to secure employment without having to sign on to something he/she may not want nor wish to pay Coercion money to...in fact these Individuals can SPEAK for themselves without some Union THUG doing it for them.

*Rugged Individualism* The Backbone of this Republic.

 

[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.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

Nope. You're pretty much completely wrong.

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to Work laws regulate private contracts, prohibiting unions for bargaining for a closed shop contract. It's part of Taft-Hartley, which was blatantly union-busting regulation of free markets.

There are no laws in non-right to work states that enforce closed shops - just private contracts.

 

[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.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

Nope. You're pretty much completely wrong.

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to Work laws regulate private contracts, prohibiting unions for bargaining for a closed shop contract. It's part of Taft-Hartley, which was blatantly union-busting regulation of free markets.

There are no laws in non-right to work states that enforce closed shops - just private contracts.

Union-Busting eh?

Since WHEN do Unions Dictate terms for the rest of us?

They don't. I *LOATHE UNIONS*...They are nothing but an arm of the DNC...in an attempt to Money Launder.It's what brings us piece of shit politicians like Obama and Dingy Harry Reid.

 

[The T]

Oh? And did I mention that UNIONS are Corporations?

Sure they are...their Commodity is Labour, and Politicians.

*BIG LABOUR*

Just like *BIG OIL*...*BIG_________________________* the Statists like to demigogue...

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

No kidding. My friend just got a job and the first day, blatantly went out and said "Well we have union labor which is great, but we don't anyone else to join a union."

What does that mean? They can fire you just like that for whatever reason. They don't want to give you a raise? Fired. Or fired for just being old.

Republicans always say "Well if unions are sooooo great, why doesn't anyone join them anymore?" Well I just showed them that companies are weeding them out. You try to begin a union, you are fired. This is a systematic approach to shut out the workers and get the most out of them without giving them much money.

As you said, some jobs need the protection of union labor to keep their job. Sure companies all the time move out of areas to more pro business areas, but when they move to other areas, they basically are saying "We really don't want to pay the people who make us more profitable." Thats a great strategy for Wall Street, but Main Street hates it.

Again, I get that businesses want to do things at the cheapest price. But disenfranchising your employees is not the way to do it.

This law will not pass and the Republicans in this state know it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

Nope. You're pretty much completely wrong.

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to Work laws regulate private contracts, prohibiting unions for bargaining for a closed shop contract. It's part of Taft-Hartley, which was blatantly union-busting regulation of free markets.

There are no laws in non-right to work states that enforce closed shops - just private contracts.

Union-Busting eh?

Since WHEN do Unions Dictate terms for the rest of us?

They don't. I *LOATHE UNIONS*...They are nothing but an arm of the DNC...in an attempt to Money Launder.It's what brings us piece of shit politicians like Obama and Dingy Harry Reid.

Why shouldn't unions be able to dictate the terms of their private contracts with management? Isn't that the whole point of a contract - an agreement between two parties?

Can't you see that it's hypocritical to want government to get its nose out of business when they're regulating management, but encourage interference as long as it supports management?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh? And did I mention that UNIONS are Corporations?

Sure they are...their Commodity is Labour, and Politicians.

*BIG LABOUR*

Just like *BIG OIL*...*BIG_________________________* the Statists like to demigogue...

Unions are not corporations, they're non-profit organizations. Still, they're certainly similar.

You're missing my point though. The deck is stacked towards management - it always has been, because they've got the money. Organized labor takes some of that power back - and as everyone knows, management and labor are both equally important to creation of wealth.

Unions may be just as corrupt as corporations, but since management has a voice in politics, so should labor.

 

[The T]

Nope. You're pretty much completely wrong.

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to Work laws regulate private contracts, prohibiting unions for bargaining for a closed shop contract. It's part of Taft-Hartley, which was blatantly union-busting regulation of free markets.

There are no laws in non-right to work states that enforce closed shops - just private contracts.

Union-Busting eh?

Since WHEN do Unions Dictate terms for the rest of us?

They don't. I *LOATHE UNIONS*...They are nothing but an arm of the DNC...in an attempt to Money Launder.It's what brings us piece of shit politicians like Obama and Dingy Harry Reid.

Why shouldn't unions be able to dictate the terms of their private contracts with management? Isn't that the whole point of a contract - an agreement between two parties?

Can't you see that it's hypocritical to want government to get its nose out of business when they're regulating management, but encourage interference as long as it supports management?

They can...in fact so can ANY able-bodied human that can speak for themselves and prove it on performance. It's just that the UNIONS get too fucking greedy at the expense of the Company...

*NEXT*

 

[DaGoose]

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

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.

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.

"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.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

If you don't believe in unions then don't go to work in a place that has one. Just how hard can that be?

Now THERE'S your "Right To Work".

.

 

[Anachronism]

No kidding. My friend just got a job and the first day, blatantly went out and said "Well we have union labor which is great, but we don't anyone else to join a union."

What does that mean? They can fire you just like that for whatever reason. They don't want to give you a raise? Fired. Or fired for just being old.

Republicans always say "Well if unions are sooooo great, why doesn't anyone join them anymore?" Well I just showed them that companies are weeding them out. You try to begin a union, you are fired. This is a systematic approach to shut out the workers and get the most out of them without giving them much money.

As you said, some jobs need the protection of union labor to keep their job. Sure companies all the time move out of areas to more pro business areas, but when they move to other areas, they basically are saying "We really don't want to pay the people who make us more profitable." Thats a great strategy for Wall Street, but Main Street hates it.

Again, I get that businesses want to do things at the cheapest price. But disenfranchising your employees is not the way to do it.

This law will not pass and the Republicans in this state know it.

JFK, I agree and disagree with parts of your commentary.....

The department that I work in only Unionized a little over three years ago. Our outside/Operations departments have been Union forever, and parts of our Engineering Department were previously Union, but the Engineers and Designers (CAD/GIS) only Unionized back in late 2007. We've had two or three other Departments Unionize since then. In fact at this point all of the Operations/outside workers that I'm aware of are Union and most of our clerical/engineering staff is as well. It's mostly the Management and Supervisory groups that are non-Union at this point.

In terms of companies fighting unionization efforts.... yes a lot of them do. That's why it's best to look at getting in touch with the proper national labor organizations before jumping in the deep end of the pool. They're very helpful in organizing, dealing with the legal issues, and ensuring that things are done properly and without any untoward actions on either side. If the company already has Union employees one of the first steps can be to get a "neutrality" clause worked into the next contract.... That's what happened with us. 12 years ago the department tried to Unionize and the effort failed because the Company made all sorts of promises that they never came through on. In May of 2007, the Union got a "Neutrality" clause in the contract, which meant the company was not allowed to make any positive or negative commentary on our Unionization attempt that fall/winter.

One of the issues I have (not necessarily where I am) with some Unions is that the membership forgets that they're not employees of the Union. They are still there to work for the Company. The Union does not sign their weekly checks. To that end, they see it as an adversarial relationship rather than a business partnership, which is what the Company - Union relationship should be. That's when things get out of hand on either/both sides.

 

[Anachronism]

If you don't believe in unions then don't go to work in a place that has one. Just how hard can that be?

Now THERE'S your "Right To Work".

Goose, you're absolutely Correct. In fact when our Department unionized we did lose about 15-20 engineers because they didn't want to be part of the Union. They either moved to other, non-represented departments inside the company or to other companies alltogether.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Liberals talking about work?

LOL


Obama's legacy is unemployment




And debt




And wars




and stolen stimulus




and corporate bailouts










and ........................



Obama is a 1 term President

 

[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.

"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.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

If you don't believe in unions then don't go to work in a place that has one. Just how hard can that be?

Now THERE'S your "Right To Work".

.

It's when they make Life difficult for the REST of us that don't subscribe that THEY become a problem. Biggest example is PUBLIC SECTOR Unions that mean to siphon off as much as they can from the TAXPAYER that was never represented in the discussions...

But YET we have to PAY their retirements...WHY>?

Taxation without Representation? We fought a WAR over this one a moon or two ago...

And as to Private Sector Unions? If They are stupid enough to fall for it? They deserve to GO OUTTA BUSINESS.

 

[DaGoose]

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

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Right to Work laws are the government getting out of the way. It's the non-Right to Work states where the government interferes and passes laws making union membership compulsory if you want the job.

If you don't believe in unions then don't go to work in a place that has one. Just how hard can that be?

Now THERE'S your "Right To Work".

.

It's when they make Life difficult for the REST of us that don't subscribe that THEY become a problem. Biggest example is PUBLIC SECTOR Unions that mean to siphon off as much as they can from the TAXPAYER that was never represented in the discussions...

But YET we have to PAY their retirements...WHY>?

Taxation without Representation? We fought a WAR over this one a moon or two ago...

And as to Private Sector Unions? If They are stupid enough to fall for it? They deserve to GO OUTTA BUSINESS.

1) Sorry, but this is NOT a case "Taxation Without Representation". YOUR elected officials negotiate with the public unions.

2) You pay for their retirements because they EARNED them and it is part of the contract that YOU, the taxpayer agreed to through your ELECTED representative.

3) As for private sector unions I belong to one. I work my ass off, the union does not put up with slackers, we have good labor relations and the company is making great profits.

And again.....if you don't want to work in a unionized place then look for work elsewhere. And if you make the choice to not work in a unionized workplace then stop crying about the pay and benefits we get. It's none of your business. You made your choice so live with it.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Right-to-work’ movement claims victory in Missouri, eyes NH next

By Adam ShawPublished February 06, 2017
FoxNews.com
video
NH could be the Northeast's first 'right-to-work' state



Republican Gov. Eric Greitens signed legislation on Monday making Missouri the latest “right-to-work” state, as the growing movement sets its sights next on New Hampshire – hoping to break into one of the labor unions’ last remaining strongholds.

 

[leftwinger]

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

That is another one to get rid of right away. Go Trump go. don't run out of ink now.

 

[spoileralert]

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.

Hate to break it to you. But you are wrong. Right to work doesn't mean anything. I used to work in Texas. It was a right to work state. I got a job at a place called Iowa Beef. I HAD to join a union. They didn't do shit. But I had to join anyway. That aside, what 'right to work" really means is "right to fuck over your employees."

 

[Flash]

Liberals hate the right to chose, unless it has to do with killing their children on demand.,