Scott Walker: I Took On Unions, I Can Take On ISIS

Right to work means right to go backwards in every facet of one's employment. Somehow it has become wrong tor a worker to fight for improvement. They are supposed to imply accept what they get offered or quit correct?
 
How was the right able to get away with being repugnant to our supreme law of the land?

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Any of the several States impairing in the Obligation of Contracts must be considered extra-Constitutional and repugnant to Article 1, Section 10 upon appeal to the general government under the authority retained by the People as declared in our Ninth and Tenth Articles of Amendment.
 
First they came for the public unions now they come for all Unions ......
Feudalism is back, with a vengeance.

Right now, the Wisconsin legislature is considering a bill that would make Wisconsin the nation's 25th right-to-work-for-less state.

but here's the thing. What happens when you make a state "Right to Work" is that all the guys who didn't want to join the union stop paying for it.

The biggest problem with unions is that they see non-union members as the enemy.
 
First they came for the public unions now they come for all Unions ......
Feudalism is back, with a vengeance.

Right now, the Wisconsin legislature is considering a bill that would make Wisconsin the nation's 25th right-to-work-for-less state.

but here's the thing. What happens when you make a state "Right to Work" is that all the guys who didn't want to join the union stop paying for it.

The biggest problem with unions is that they see non-union members as the enemy.

Why should an employer not have to employ anyone who applies, in Right to Work States.

In that alternative, would unions be as socially necessary and as socially proper as a form of safety net for more organized labor?
 
Why should an employer not have to employ anyone who applies, in Right to Work States.

In that alternative, would unions be as socially necessary and as socially proper as a form of safety net for more organized labor?

I'm not sure what you are asking here, and I really am pro-union, despite having to argue with twits like SoapDrop who think that Unions should pay guys to play cards on the taxpayer's dime.

I think that there should be representatives of labor to negotiate working conditions and wages and to address concerns about safety.

I think one of the main reasons why unions declined is that government does a lot of that now.

I think another reason why they've declined is mobility. when you can drive to a job that meets your conditions, why fight it out with your current employer?

That said, I think the other part of the problem is that unions are organized by trade instead of company. That encourages a union to drive a company out of business as a warning to others in the same trade. But if often means that the guys who worked at that company and built relationships with their co-workers end up getting screwed.

The Germans and Japanese have work councils. Which means that the union is organized within that company, and the Work Council has some say in how the company is managed. It's better for the workers in that they have more of a VOE (voice of the Employee), and better for the company because the employees understand the VOB. (Voice of the Business)
 
States have as much Constitutional authority to impair in the obligation of Contracts, as did Hostess management.

Now that the right is still advancing the Cause of communism in Cuba, is it any wonder the right has no problem being a party of "deniers and disparagers" of the rights of organized labor--as the least wealthy, but not as equally so of wealthier capitalists even under our republican form of Government.
 

Forum List

Back
Top