The Right to Work for less money

Liberals claim people should be forced to join a union to get specific jobs....that's not discrimination.

Now, imagine if a company said you had to join their church to work for them.....
 
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?

It's none too complicated. It allows workers to benefit from the union (for now), without paying dues. The idea is a simple one: limit funding, and unions get weaker. Union busting with a flowery-sounding name, is all it is. So the folks enjoying the nice wages and benefits, without paying union dues, won't be enjoying them too much longer. Morons.
 
You're a legend in your own mind! :clap2:

Edited to add: Apologies to Baretta who beat me to the punch. Great minds think alike.

Prove me wrong.

Prove yourself right. Show us where conservatives express a desire to widen the gap between rich and poor. Since you are right, that should be easy. I'm interested in knowing who ran on a platform of fuck the poor. I'm sure you have many examples. Go.

The Paul Ryan budget, which Mitt Romney endorsed, concentrated most of its budget cuts on programs supporting low income Americans.

Now name one conservative initiative that accomplishes a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.
 
Prove yourself right. Show us where conservatives express a desire to widen the gap between rich and poor. Since you are right, that should be easy. I'm interested in knowing who ran on a platform of fuck the poor. I'm sure you have many examples. Go.

He'll have a hard time showing that, because very few people express those aims explicitly (and even less do so publicly), but there is a massive willful indifference on the right to the plight of the average person.

Prove it.

Who gives more to charity, for example?

Who is most likely to buy a union made product?

There isn't a meaningful difference in charitable giving between the various factions.

Charitable contributions are the lifeblood of many nonprofit organizations; however, little attention has been paid to how political attitudes affect donations. In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits.

Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States by Michele Margolis, Michael Sances :: SSRN

The paper then goes on to show that partisanship does effect the types of charities individuals give to, and that people of a given ideology are typically more generous when their side is in power.
 
The so-called right to work is actually a choice, which is really what freedom is all about, a choice that each of us ought to have the right to make. Whether it is for less money or not is up to the employee, if the person doesn't have the skills to support a higher wage then isn't it up to him/her to acquire them? Most of us started at the bottom and worked our way up, and the bottom is dictated by market forces as it should be. If you remove the right to work, then employers will hire fewer full-time people and that means fewer people starting out to climb the income ladder. That ain't a good thing.

The only choice created by "right-to-work" is that enables workers to take money out of their own pockets and redistribute it to coworkers who don't want to be bothered.
 
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.

That'd be cool if all government interference between labor and management were cut out.

You'd support that, right?

Free Markets!

Why would one not be for that?
 
Liberals claim people should be forced to join a union to get specific jobs....that's not discrimination.

Now, imagine if a company said you had to join their church to work for them.....

No one is forced to join a union. In fact, forcing people to join a union as a condition of employment is already illegal under federal law.
 
Prove me wrong.

Prove yourself right. Show us where conservatives express a desire to widen the gap between rich and poor. Since you are right, that should be easy. I'm interested in knowing who ran on a platform of fuck the poor. I'm sure you have many examples. Go.

The Paul Ryan budget, which Mitt Romney endorsed, concentrated most of its budget cuts on programs supporting low income Americans.


Now name one conservative initiative that accomplishes a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.

But the Ryan Budget was designed to put America on a path of prosperity, creating the rising tide that lifts all boats. It is your handouts which lock people into dependency that hurt the poor. The poverty rate is at a record level under Owebama.

You failed, once again.
 
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?

Most hi-tech jobs are non-union jobs and they pay extremely well.

.
 
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?

Of course it shouldn't. Look at it from both sides. If you're buying a car, should you be forced to buy from the dealership that's selling it for the highest price on the market? Conversely you're selling cars, and you think you can still make money and sell them for less than your competitor, but the government says no one and can purchase a car from you because you're always lower than everyone else?
 

The very topic we're discussing in this thread is a perfect example. Workers in "right-to-work" states are paid less money, are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance coverage, and are less likely to have pension.

And more likely to have a job.

You do realize that Obama brags openly about these private sector jobs he 'created' in right-to-works states, right?

"Right-to-work" laws do not create jobs. Nevada, the state with the highest unemployment rate, in the nation, is a "right-to-work" state. Massachusetts and Texas have the same unemployment rate. Ditto for New York and Georgia.
 
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?

Most hi-tech jobs are non-union jobs and they pay extremely well.

.

No one is saying an industry has to be unionized to pay well. The technology sector requires a special skill set very few people have, so those people are able to command a wage premium (although, many of those jobs are being outsourced to China and India, so it may not be the boon it appears to be on the surface).
 
Prove yourself right. Show us where conservatives express a desire to widen the gap between rich and poor. Since you are right, that should be easy. I'm interested in knowing who ran on a platform of fuck the poor. I'm sure you have many examples. Go.

The Paul Ryan budget, which Mitt Romney endorsed, concentrated most of its budget cuts on programs supporting low income Americans.


Now name one conservative initiative that accomplishes a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.

But the Ryan Budget was designed to put America on a path of prosperity, creating the rising tide that lifts all boats. It is your handouts which lock people into dependency that hurt the poor. The poverty rate is at a record level under Owebama.

You failed, once again.

Same Supply Side bullshit, that's been an abject failure. Boats are rising at a record rate, only very few of them, which wasn't enough for that lying-ass retard, Ryan, the little veep-pick that couldn't. So he came up with Trickle Down Redux, in hopes of greater failure, apparently. What a dweeb. But no matter. Voters sent him packing along with Romney.

All's well that end well.
 
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder had previously said he had no interest in signing right to work legislation this term, but that has changed as unions have made it increasingly more difficult to govern the state. The Detroit Free Press‘ Tom Walsh explains:

Public employee unions opposed Snyder’s moves to put more teeth into emergency manager laws that would enable swifter action to rescue cities and school districts that bungled themselves into insolvency.

In Detroit, Mayor Dave Bing and a spineless City Council were stonewalled by employee unions at every turn, slow-walking needed reforms and cost-cutting while the city burned through cash at a frightening rate.

As a result, Snyder’s patient attempt to help fix Detroit via consent agreement instead of imposing an emergency manager has failed.
To top it off, Snyder found himself having to fight off Proposal 2, the ill-advised November ballot attempt to stuff a bag of goodies for organized labor into the Michigan Constitution.

Michigan has both the highest unionization and unemployment rates in the Midwest.

Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
The very topic we're discussing in this thread is a perfect example. Workers in "right-to-work" states are paid less money, are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance coverage, and are less likely to have pension.

And more likely to have a job.

You do realize that Obama brags openly about these private sector jobs he 'created' in right-to-works states, right?

"Right-to-work" laws do not create jobs. Nevada, the state with the highest unemployment rate, in the nation, is a "right-to-work" state. Massachusetts and Texas have the same unemployment rate. Ditto for New York and Georgia.


1) Read

2) Weep

'Since Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, signed the legislation making his state the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state in early February, Indiana has added about 43,000 jobs, while Michigan has lost about 7,300, said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.'

Indiana's move pushed Michigan on right-to-work - Washington Times


The genie is very much out of the bottle now.
 
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?

You're missing an important point in your question. You'er able to provide a product at a lower cost, but only because you're taking money out of the pockets of others to pay for it.
 
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.

That'd be cool if all government interference between labor and management were cut out.

You'd support that, right?

Free Markets!

Why would one not be for that?

I can see where management would be DEAD SET against it.

Imagine workers going on strike and ringing a factory preventing trucks from going in or out.

I would imagine in that case..management would want government interference.
 

The Paul Ryan budget, which Mitt Romney endorsed, concentrated most of its budget cuts on programs supporting low income Americans.


Now name one conservative initiative that accomplishes a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.

But the Ryan Budget was designed to put America on a path of prosperity, creating the rising tide that lifts all boats. It is your handouts which lock people into dependency that hurt the poor. The poverty rate is at a record level under Owebama.

You failed, once again.

Same Supply Side bullshit, that's been an abject failure. Boats are rising at a record rate, only very few of them, which wasn't enough for that lying-ass retard, Ryan, the little veep-pick that couldn't. So he came up with Trickle Down Redux, in hopes of greater failure, apparently. What a dweeb. But no matter. Voters sent him packing along with Romney.

All's well that end well.

"All's well that end well."

It just started. :confused:
 
It's none too complicated. It allows workers to benefit from the union (for now), without paying dues. The idea is a simple one: limit funding, and unions get weaker. Union busting with a flowery-sounding name, is all it is. So the folks enjoying the nice wages and benefits, without paying union dues, won't be enjoying them too much longer. Morons.

As I've stated, I don't see anything wrong with a 'closed shop'. If a union can come to a voluntary agreement and sign a contract to that effect with an employer, I don't see a problem. But such a contract must be voluntarily agreed to to be valid - and collective bargaining laws set up situations where unions can force such "agreements" against the will of the employer.
 
And more likely to have a job.

You do realize that Obama brags openly about these private sector jobs he 'created' in right-to-works states, right?

"Right-to-work" laws do not create jobs. Nevada, the state with the highest unemployment rate, in the nation, is a "right-to-work" state. Massachusetts and Texas have the same unemployment rate. Ditto for New York and Georgia.


1) Read

2) Weep

'Since Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, signed the legislation making his state the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state in early February, Indiana has added about 43,000 jobs, while Michigan has lost about 7,300, said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.'

Indiana's move pushed Michigan on right-to-work - Washington Times


The genie is very much out of the bottle now.

Correlation does not prove causation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top