The Right to Work for less money

[SniperFire]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

You could call said omnibus organization National Socialist (fill in name of country) Workers' Party.

 

[beretta304]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

You've got a point.

No one should be "forced" to do anything.

So along with this..we should do away with licenses and patents. Copyrights too.

After all..we all want Free Markets.

Right?

Licenses and patents do not deduct union dues automatically from workers checks.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, Obamination is a lying buffoon.

Right to Work states have lower unemployment and higher wages than pro-union states.

Unions just want to keep their cushy benefits for themselves while their neighbors lose their jobs and sometimes contnue to pay public unions' salaries and benefits during a recession and budget cuts.

Liberals are scum that will say anything to get the union votes, even if it drives business out of a state.

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

 

[dblack]

I guess I'm just interested in the response to the obvious corollary of Obama's statement: that people should be deprived of the right to work for less money. If someone can provide a service or product at a lower cost, should that be illegal?

No Who is to say the labor component is solely what drives it's cost.

What??

 

[mudwhistle]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

You've got a point.

No one should be "forced" to do anything.

So along with this..we should do away with licenses and patents. Copyrights too.

After all..we all want Free Markets.

Right?

Well don't just cry about it, go for it if you think that will work for you.

 

[kwc57]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

I call bullshit. I am 55 and have lived in a right to work state all my life. My dad worked in a union shop for over 30 years. By the time I was 28, I was making more than my dad was at 58. Right to work doesn't mean lower pay, it just means you can get a job without being bullied to follow a line against your will and best interests. In right to work environments, you don't have the us vs them mentality between the workers and management. I have no real problem with the existence of unions. I do have a problem with a person being forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

 

[beretta304]

I guess I'm just interested in the response to the obvious corollary of Obama's statement: that people should be deprived of the right to work for less money. If someone can provide a service or product at a lower cost, should that be illegal?

No Who is to say the labor component is solely what drives it's cost.

What??

If someone can provide a service or product at a lower cost, should that be illegal? No


Who is to say the labor component is solely what drives it's cost up?

 

[eflatminor]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

Yep. As long as the "forcing" you refer to doesn't actually involve force, but instead consists of voluntary employment.

For the record, I wouldn't work for a company requiring any of the things you suggest - including mandatory union membership.

Okay then, I appreciate the consistency of your argument. I think it's bat shit crazy, but at least it's consistent. Somehow, I seriously doubt the pro union lefties would be okay with a major corporation requiring, as a condition of employment, all of its employees to join the Republican party. But at least we know you wouldn't mind at all.

 

[dblack]

If someone can provide a service or product at a lower cost, should that be illegal?

Are you suggesting it should be?

Oh, gawd no. Maybe I haven't been clear. The corporatist collective bargaining rules at the core of this debate are the problem. They, effectively, implement the principle Obama is promoting by condemning the "right to work for less money". They make it illegal for non-union workers to undercut the unions by offering their services at lower prices.

 

[Paulie]

It isn't about the right to work for less money. It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union. Let's cut the bullshit. And there's at least 2 if not 3 other threads on this.

I don't think it's bullshit at all. I think the right to work for less money is crucial to productive society. Many of our problems, especially economic problems, are created exactly when we try to interfere with this right. The right to work for less money is what provides all of us with the good and services we need at reasonable prices.

As is the right to collectively bargain crucial to our society.

What these laws end up doing, in all reality, is forbid people to get together and bargain as a group.

Not at all. Form a union all you want. Just don't force membership.

 

[dblack]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

Yep. As long as the "forcing" you refer to doesn't actually involve force, but instead consists of voluntary employment.

For the record, I wouldn't work for a company requiring any of the things you suggest - including mandatory union membership.

Okay then, I appreciate the consistency of your argument. I think it's bat shit crazy, but at least it's consistent. Somehow, I seriously doubt the pro union lefties would be okay with a major corporation requiring, as a condition of employment, all of its employees to join the Republican party. But at least we know you wouldn't mind at all.

Should a business be able to hire only family members? Government should not be in charge of telling businesses who to hire.

 

[Katzndogz]

Right to work states are successful. Union states are failing as union controlled cities like Detroit fail.

 

[kwc57]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

You've got a point.

No one should be "forced" to do anything.

So along with this..we should do away with licenses and patents. Copyrights too.

After all..we all want Free Markets.

Right?

Look, I have an apple in this hand. I have a cow in this hand. Put them together and I have a space shuttle. I like your logic!

 

[eflatminor]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

You've got a point.

No one should be "forced" to do anything.

So along with this..we should do away with licenses and patents. Copyrights too.

After all..we all want Free Markets.

Right?

Who is being forced to get a patent? How is obtaining a copyright an act of force?

Way to many licensing requirements out there, but still, that has nothing to do with forcing workers to join an organization.

 

[Paulie]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

You've got a point.

No one should be "forced" to do anything.

So along with this..we should do away with licenses and patents. Copyrights too.

After all..we all want Free Markets.

Right?

Licenses are forced compliance. Patents and copyrights are merely protection of property. Apples and oranges.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

Unions require that all union members donate money to the democratic party through their union dues.

 

[Sallow]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

You've got a point.

No one should be "forced" to do anything.

So along with this..we should do away with licenses and patents. Copyrights too.

After all..we all want Free Markets.

Right?

Licenses and patents do not deduct union dues automatically from workers checks.

Yes..but they do artificially interfere with a free market and automatically cut out participation in it. And it's government interference.

You support it?

 

[kwc57]

It isn't about the right to work for less money. It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union. Let's cut the bullshit. And there's at least 2 if not 3 other threads on this.

I don't think it's bullshit at all. I think the right to work for less money is crucial to productive society. Many of our problems, especially economic problems, are created exactly when we try to interfere with this right. The right to work for less money is what provides all of us with the good and services we need at reasonable prices.

As is the right to collectively bargain crucial to our society.

What these laws end up doing, in all reality, is forbid people to get together and bargain as a group.

Really? Where did you hear that? Obama and unions? They do no such thing. Unions can organize and do all the things they always have. They just can't legally force you to join them. If you want to be a pipefitter, but you don't want to join the pipefitter's union, you don't have to. You can work at your choice of profession without being forced to join an organization against your will. That is what right to work laws do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think it's bullshit at all. I think the right to work for less money is crucial to productive society. Many of our problems, especially economic problems, are created exactly when we try to interfere with this right. The right to work for less money is what provides all of us with the good and services we need at reasonable prices.

As is the right to collectively bargain crucial to our society.

What these laws end up doing, in all reality, is forbid people to get together and bargain as a group.

Not at all. Form a union all you want. Just don't force membership.

The requirement to pay agency fees, which loosely translates as union membership but not exactly,

is an agreement reached by the EMPLOYER and the union. So-called right to work laws interfere with the right of employers and employees to make that agreement.

There is no purpose to right to work laws other than to weaken the ability of employees to negotiate better wages/benefits, etc.

No purpose whatsoever, despite the propaganda.

 

[Paulie]

If you think it's acceptable for a business to require it's workers to join a union, would you also be okay with a business that required its workers to join a political party? How about a particular church? Or the local Elks Lodge? What if a business required its workers to join the National Right to Work Committee, an organization that lobbies against forced unionization?

If you're okay with businesses forcing workers to join unions, then you have to accept the slippery slope of business forcing workers to join all kinds of organizations. After all, the worker can always look for another job if they don't like it, right?

Unions require that all union members donate money to the democratic party through their union dues.

You barely ever add anything of substance to a discussion.