W. Virginia becomes #26 right to work state

[initforme]

Some just have it out for workers. They believe in low wages, cutting benefits, no overtime pay, no paid sick time, etc. They look as labor as nothing more than cutting into profit. No human factor at all. They don't like it when workers ask for better.

 

[initforme]

Perhaps if the GOP actually said something positive about workers rather than theceo, unions might switch to thegop.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Perhaps if the unions had concentrated solely on workplace matters and stayed out of Democratic Party politics, they wouldn't be fumbling.

A company CEO can use company assets to promote whatever political agenda he or she supports.

And you support that.

Yes. It's the company's money. The company decides what to do with it.

But the unions involving themselves in politics to support their agenda is bad eh?

Why is that?

Because the union is using forced "contributions" for political matters which the workers from whom the money was extorted may oppose.

As with all things socialist, it's other people's money, taken involuntarily from the workers.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Yes. It's the company's money. The company decides what to do with it.

Really? the money in a corporation belongs to the CEO? Really. Not the shareholders? Or bankers. How did it become the CEOs money to do with what ever he chooses?

But you know what.Just like you know the union didnt force anyone to become employed at a particular unionized company. And when the employee did decide to accept a job at a union company, he or she knew it going in.

And if the union collected those union dues it was for the collective benefit of the workers. And if the union decided to use those funds (dues) for political purposes which they (the union) feels will be for the benefit of the working people they represent, no one was being forced to pay anything. the workers receive a benefit for the dues they pay. No force required.

So sorry you are wrong. Again.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yes. It's the company's money. The company decides what to do with it.

Really? the money in a corporation belongs to the CEO? Really. Not the shareholders? Or bankers. How did it become the CEOs money to do with what ever he chooses?

Nice try, no banana.

But you know what.Just like you know the union didnt force anyone to become employed at a particular unionized company. And when the employee did decide to accept a job at a union company, he or she knew it going in.

In both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, party membership was required to work in your chosen field.

That said, if you work for a shop that becomes unionized, you join the union and pay the required fees, or your job goes to a union member and you get bounced.

And if the union collected those union dues it was for the collective benefit of the workers.

Being forced to support a political party to which you are opposed seems a dubious benefit.

And if the union decided to use those funds (dues) for political purposes which they (the union) feels will be for the benefit of the working people they represent, no one was being forced to pay anything.

Avail yourself of logic one day.

 

[Mr Natural]

This is America and every worker should have the right to work for less money.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Being forced to support a political party to which you are opposed seems a dubious benefit.

How is that any different than being an employee who is opposed to the political purposes the CEO decides to spend money on?

In both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, party membership was required to work in your chosen field.

7 fucking percent of the private workers are unionized.

You know your argument and logic sucks when you have to bring up Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to try and support you bullshit opinions.

Cant you do any better than that?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Avail yourself of logic one day.

In other words; you got nothing. I understand. It is typical for your kind that when you run out of republican talking points, you give in to inane babbling like; avail yourself blah blah blah.

WtF does that even mean in context to the topic?

 

[Mr Natural]

"Prosperity through lower wages!"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Being forced to support a political party to which you are opposed seems a dubious benefit.

How is that any different than being an employee who is opposed to the political purposes the CEO decides to spend money on?

I see logic avoids you. It is different because the CEO is using the company's money, not the employee's.

7 fucking percent of the private workers are unionized.

Oh? Yes, unions are in decline. It was 14 percent just two years ago.

You know your argument and logic sucks when you have to bring up Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to try and support you bullshit opinions.

Your complaint that a shoe fits is noted.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Avail yourself of logic one day.

In other words; you got nothing. I understand. It is typical for your kind that when you run out of republican talking points, you give in to inane babbling like; avail yourself blah blah blah.

WtF does that even mean in context to the topic?

I see you need more than mere remedial training in logic.

 

[Lakhota]

Perhaps if the unions had concentrated solely on workplace matters and stayed out of Democratic Party politics, they wouldn't be fumbling.

A company CEO can use company assets to promote whatever political agenda he or she supports.

And you support that.

Yes. It's the company's money. The company decides what to do with it.

But the unions involving themselves in politics to support their agenda is bad eh?

Why is that?

Because the union is using forced "contributions" for political matters which the workers from whom the money was extorted may oppose.

As with all things socialist, it's other people's money, taken involuntarily from the workers.

You obviously don't fully understand RTW. Do some research.

 

[Lakhota]

So what is right-to-work?

Under U.S. labor law, a union that wins an election in a workplace must represent all the workers in the bargaining unit, even the ones who may have voted against the union. Since that representation costs money, unions prefer to ink contracts that require all the workers in the unit to support the union financially. Right-to-work laws make such arrangements illegal.

Under right to work, no employee can be required to pay fees to the union. Once provided with an out, many workers naturally choose to stop supporting it. Some may have never liked the union or its politics. But others may opt out simply due to economic self-interest: It makes little sense to pay the union for a service that it's obligated to provide you anyway.

Conservatives like to say right-to-work legislation promotes individual freedom. Unions like to say it advances individual free-riding, since workers can enjoy the benefits of the union's bargaining without helping to underwrite it.

(Contrary to popular opinion, no worker in the U.S. can be forced to be a full dues-paying, card-carrying member of a union. But they can be compelled to pay so-called "agency fees" -- the portion of dues that goes expressly to bargaining and representation costs, as opposed to, say, political campaigns. Right-to-work guarantees that workers do not have to pay these fees.)

On the right, proponents of right-to-work argue that the laws make states more competitive and attract business. On the left, opponents of right-to-work argue that the laws drive down wages and fail to create jobs. What few would deny is that right-to-work laws can be crippling for organized labor.

As workers bow out of unions, the remaining workers must bear a larger share of the costs associated with representation and organizing. And if the union becomes less effective, workers have even more reason to leave, creating a downward spiral.

More: How Right-To-Work Laws Hurt Unions

It doesn't take a genius to see the obvious union-busting intent of RTW.

 

[Si modo]

Unions had a place and a time and we have all ultimately benefited from them, but they got greedy and overplayed their hand too many times. Now the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction.

The 2nd Amendment had a place and time and we ultimately benefited from it, but its supporters got greedy and overplayed their hands too many times.

See how silly you sound?

What's even sillier is comparing the existence or nonexistence of a union to a right in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Lakhota]

RTW allows scab labor to freeload off others without even having to pay "agency fees" for bargaining and representation costs.

(Contrary to popular opinion, no worker in the U.S. can be forced to be a full dues-paying, card-carrying member of a union. But they can be compelled to pay so-called "agency fees" -- the portion of dues that goes expressly to bargaining and representation costs, as opposed to, say, political campaigns. Right-to-work guarantees that workers do not have to pay these fees.)

More: How Right-To-Work Laws Hurt Unions

 

[Si modo]

Yet, an individual has a choice. I'm Pro-Choice.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And the corporate board room cheers as they attach their golden shoots!!!!

GO build some infrastructure with your Legos

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Stop howling Libs the right to work doesn't get rid of Unions it gives workers the right to refuse membership. I once worked for a Construction Company based out of Missouri that landed some jobs in my state. I knew that when one job ended they would take me to another that was until they moved to a Union job in another state. I couldn't go because I didn't belong to a Union.

Regardless of the misplaced outrage of the left Unions didn't need this to sink them. Membership have been steadily plummeting for years. Unions were needed back in the day not so much now.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Along similar partisan lines Friday, the Legislature dealt another blow to unions by overriding a second Tomblin veto, of a law that will eliminate the state's prevailing wage on public construction projects. The law becomes effective in May.

Gotta love the war the Republicans wage on working men and women.

A carpenter working for a non union company used to be so happy when his company bid on government contracts. He would get a nice raise during the time he was on this job.

He sure will be happy now to know that he wont be paid union scale on govt jobs in the future. the Repubs just took a few thousand out of his pocket

And you dip shit right wingers think WHO is going to benefit from not paying these workers union scale? You think the contract will come in cheaper? that the government that you all hate is all the sudden gonna be frugal and get all these wage savings? LMAO.

Fuck no. the contractor is going to bid like he always has and pocket the wage savings for himself. Well, he will have to make appropriate campaign contibutions. But thats ok. you have to spend money to make money on the government.

You right wing working people are being played for suckers.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Perhaps if the unions had concentrated solely on workplace matters and stayed out of Democratic Party politics, they wouldn't be fumbling.

A company CEO can use company assets to promote whatever political agenda he or she supports.

And you support that.

Yes. It's the company's money. The company decides what to do with it.

But the unions involving themselves in politics to support their agenda is bad eh?

Why is that?

Because the union is using forced "contributions" for political matters which the workers from whom the money was extorted may oppose.

As with all things socialist, it's other people's money, taken involuntarily from the workers.

You obviously don't fully understand RTW. Do some research.

I understand it just fine. Virginia has been a RTW state since 1947.