The Right to Work for less money

[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?

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.

Oh, well, if anyone is stealing as part of their work, the argument is null and void. That should definitely be against he law.

 

[Polk]

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.

And we know the government would never intervene on behalf of management. It's not like the army fired on workers during the Pullman Strike or anything.

 

[kwc57]

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.

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.

Uh-huh, right. The problem with that statement is that the right is made up of average people.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

That can be debated in another thread. The point was to the asshole claim that Republicans were trying to hurt the little people by breaking the cyclical dispair of gubmint dependency foisted on them by Liberals buying votes.

 

[Polk]

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.

Oh, well, if anyone is stealing as part of their work, the argument is null and void. That should definitely be against he law.

But that's exactly what "right-to-work" laws do. You don't have to pay anything to the union for the benefits you get from the contract. Note that no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years.

 

[Koios]

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.

What that conservative Moony rag fails to understand is right-to-work does not create a job; it only limits the amount union dues paid.

 

[Polk]

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.

Uh-huh, right. The problem with that statement is that the right is made up of average people.

Because people never, ever, do things that contradict their own self-interest.

 

[eflatminor]

Except that firms are still required to pay the non-union members the union wage. The result is that no one will join the union, because hey, you get the benefit whether you join or not.

If true, then the union did a piss poor job of putting together a contract.

If not true, the employer can pay whatever wage they deem necessary to fill the vacancy.

It's not a matter of contract. Those requirements are statutory.

So we have another example of government meddling with business. I mean, shouldn't a union be able to negotiate whatever contract they like with a willing business owner?

 

[Polk]

If true, then the union did a piss poor job of putting together a contract.

If not true, the employer can pay whatever wage they deem necessary to fill the vacancy.

It's not a matter of contract. Those requirements are statutory.

So we have another example of government meddling with business. I mean, shouldn't a union be able to negotiate whatever contract they like with a willing business owner?

Sure, if you were actually okay with the government not getting involved at all, but for some reason I feel like you'd have a problem with workers physically blocking entrance to the plant.

 

[dblack]

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.

Oh, well, if anyone is stealing as part of their work, the argument is null and void. That should definitely be against he law.

But that's exactly what "right-to-work" laws do. You don't have to pay anything to the union for the benefits you get from the contract. Note that no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years.

Ahh.. I see your point. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I think the Right to Work laws are bad law. They're yet another case of responding to the unforeseen consequences of one bad law (or in this case the unfortunate body of labor law), with something just as bad or even worse. That seems to be all we do anymore, make up new shitty laws to paper over the crap from older shitty laws.

 

[kwc57]

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.

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.

Holy shit, I'd better let my wife with an associates degree know she shouldn't be making $100k+, have health insurance or a pension since she lives in Oklahoma. Polk said so. In fact, I'd better let all of my neighbors know they shouldn't either. Thanks for repeating Dear Leader and the media's big lie or we wouldn't have known.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The pro-union idiots here need to explain why unions in Michigan have fallen in numbers......that shows they are not popular. Things aren't popular because they are bad.....idiots.

 

[Polk]

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.

Holy shit, I'd better let my wife with an associates degree know she shouldn't be making $100k+, have health insurance or a pension since she lives in Oklahoma. Polk said so. In fact, I'd better let all of my neighbors know they shouldn't either. Thanks for repeating Dear Leader and the media's big lie or we wouldn't have known.

I know you're smart enough to know the difference between average compensation and the compensation of specific individuals.

 

[eflatminor]

It's not a matter of contract. Those requirements are statutory.

So we have another example of government meddling with business. I mean, shouldn't a union be able to negotiate whatever contract they like with a willing business owner?

Sure, if you were actually okay with the government not getting involved at all, but for some reason I feel like you'd have a problem with workers physically blocking entrance to the plant.

So you're for no government involvement. Okay.

Block all they want. If they're on private property however, the owner is allowed to remove them. If they're on public property, other citizens have the right to push them aside to enter the plant. Protest all you like. Block my path to earn a living, and you'll get the boot!

 

[Koios]

The pro-union idiots here need to explain why unions in Michigan have fallen in numbers......that shows they are not popular. Things aren't popular because they are bad.....idiots.

Simple. Low median household income, comparatively. Thus fewer shit-pay service jobs are created to serve MI households.

 

[SniperFire]

"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.

What that conservative Moony rag fails to understand is right-to-work does not create a job; it only limits the amount union dues paid.

LOL

Why did Indiana experience a job boom, and neighboring Michigan lose more jobs?

 

[Polk]

The pro-union idiots here need to explain why unions in Michigan have fallen in numbers......that shows they are not popular. Things aren't popular because they are bad.....idiots.

Unionization is down nationally, because more and more people are employed in the service sector, where unions are less common (and so many states have rules like right-to-work that have the effect of prohibiting unionization, meaning that it only continues to the extent it does in incumbent industries).

 

[Polk]

So we have another example of government meddling with business. I mean, shouldn't a union be able to negotiate whatever contract they like with a willing business owner?

Sure, if you were actually okay with the government not getting involved at all, but for some reason I feel like you'd have a problem with workers physically blocking entrance to the plant.

So you're for no government involvement. Okay.

Block all they want. If they're on private property however, the owner is allowed to remove them. If they're on public property, other citizens have the right to push them aside to enter the plant. Protest all you like. Block my path to earn a living, and you'll get the boot!

I'm not in favor of that, but it would be superior to what some in this thread are proposing.

Also, you're going to hit a problem (no pun intended) when you're having to assault people to gain entry.

 

[eflatminor]

Oh, well, if anyone is stealing as part of their work, the argument is null and void. That should definitely be against he law.

But that's exactly what "right-to-work" laws do. You don't have to pay anything to the union for the benefits you get from the contract. Note that no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years.

Ahh.. I see your point. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I think the Right to Work laws are bad law. They're yet another case of responding to the unforeseen consequences of one bad law (or in this case the unfortunate body of labor law), with something just as bad or even worse. That seems to be all we do anymore, make up new shitty laws to paper over the crap from older shitty laws.

Okay, confession. I'm confused.

I thought the whole idea behind RTW was to outlaw businesses that require union membership as a condition of employment. Now you're saying no business in any state can make that requirement?

I need to do more research. I'm hearing conflicting messages.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't see anything wrong with giving a person the choice.

I thought you people where for choice?