Right To Work...

[kaz]

]Wages are not handed out based on your value. They are offered, based on what a company thinks you will settle for, and are negotiated, based on what you can convince the company you might be able to get from somewhere else.

Of course they are paid on "value." Have you ever had a job before? My career is in management and management consulting, I've hired, managed and fired my entire life and you are full of shit, you have no idea what you are talking about.

We pay to get the most value out of the job. You idiot leftists fundamentally don't understand business. Our priority is not lower cost, it's ... wait for it ... profit.

Profit = revenue - cost.

"Value" is your contribution to profit.

We don't hire based only on cost, we hire to maximize profit. The negotiating room is based on the profit question. What should I pay to maximize profit? We pay more for employees who bring in revenue, we pay more for employees who will help us serve and keep our customers, we pay more for employees who reduce defects. We don't underpay because that demotivates good employees.

The leftist view that employees are socket wrenches and one is interchangeable with another and it doesn't matter what we pay so we simply turn the screws to make it as little as possible is just your Marxist mental masturbation with no connection to reality

That you don't give a shit about your job or your employer, you do as little as possible and you have a bad attitude is why your value is low and why your pay is low

 

[dblack]

What does "RIGHT TO WORK" mean... what a stupid name. Right to work is a clever way of chiseling away at the rights of workers. This is an anti worker nation. But there is the right to work for lower wages.

Why do you discount that right? Why shouldn't a worker be allowed to compete for a job by offering to work for less?

Race to the bottom.

Poverty is the wage of suckassism.

Those are nice slogans, but what do they mean? Should a store owner have the right to work for less? Should they be allowed to offer lower prices than competing stores?

You really are clueless aren't you ??

I mean you keep parroting a key word that is totally out of context.

Right to work simply means that if you have union members on job and I come on as the same type of laborer / skill set, that you have to pay me and treat me equally to that union worker and can not make me pay union dues or otherwise penalize me for not being a due paying union member

Context and intelligence makes for good arguments ..........................

Which is why I say it's a bullshit law. Granted, unions should't be empowered to take over a workplace and force themselves on unwilling employers, but the moral of the story is that government shouldn't be involved in any of this.

And, no "The Right to Work for Less" motif isn't totally out of context. It's central to the mentality of modern labor rights and it needs to be addressed directly.

 

[warf]

BS aside, right to work is a corporate ploy to reduce wages or keep them low.

Unions are organizations of workers formed to protect working conditions and wages.

As long as industries form alliances so can workers. (except where right to work laws remove that basic right)

 

[initforme]

Well if low wages are now the trend that's fine but then don't complain about someone working full time getting gov't assistance. I am all for it. I value human life.

 

[Mr Natural]

Let me ask this question:

In a Right to Work company, are the non-union workers compensated equally with the union workers?

 

[warf]

Let me ask this question:

In a Right to Work company, are the non-union workers compensated equally with the union workers?

In my state, yes.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

BS aside, right to work is a corporate ploy to reduce wages or keep them low.

Here we go with that moronic line of shit again, is comprehension a fucking major issue with you??
The right to work laws don't lower shit, shit for brains ...............

Read all my above post and links in which I keep stating :

An employer who pays a union worker scale has to also pay non union workers scale( this effectively INCREASES the non union laborers wages), if working the same job REGARDLESS of whether they join the union / pay dues ..................
Now where the fuck do you see anyone getting less dickhead??

Unions are organizations of workers formed to protect working conditions and wages.

Wrong again fuck stick, Unions don't protect workers conditions, the fucking government does that, ever heard of OSHA or NOHSS??

As long as industries form alliances so can workers. (except where right to work laws remove that basic right)

All you morons keep going here, what fucking part of :

WHEN GIVEN THE CHANCE WORKERS ARE VOTING UNIONS DOWN AND OUT??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Let me ask this question:

In a Right to Work company, are the non-union workers compensated equally with the union workers?

Yep, by law they have to be ......................

They don't have to pay dues and there can be no concessions against them for refusal to pay union dues or join the union.................

 

[Jarlaxle]

Who the hell do you think built those roads and bridges?

Do you think they just magically appeared?

For the most part: incompetent, lazy, overpaid, thuggish crooks. You know, the ones that stop at the methadone clinic (with their union rep!) on their lunch break?

 

[Jarlaxle]

.
Right To Work...
...for less

Studies Show Right-To-Work States Have Lower Wages And Benefits

Baker: It "Is Not True" That "In The Absence Of Right-To-Work Laws Workers Can Be Forced To Join A Union." In a February post for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), economist Dean Baker wrote:
"Right to work" is a great name from the standpoint of proponents, just like the term "death tax" is effective for opponents of the estate tax, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is widely believed that in the absence of right-to-work laws workers can be forced to join a union. This is not true. Workers at any workplace always have the option as to whether or not to join a union. [CEPR, 2/28/11]

<snip>

...in addition to state-level economic conditions and cost-of-living differences across states. We find the following:
• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.

• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.

• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in our regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions. [EPI, 2/17/11]

How does your State's median income compare?
Find out here ☞ http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/03/13/personal-median-income-by-state-map/

.

This from your link.

In states without right-to-work laws unions often sign contracts that require that to the union that represents the bargaining unit. all the workers in a bargaining unit pay a representation fee.

What kind of mealy mouthed dickweed says you are not required to join the union even though you are required to pay union dues?

A union thug apologist.

 

[jc456]

W

Somewhere along the line we now have working people hating each other. Unions are the enemy of America.

It is amazing. People like that dude above HATE it that a bunch of workers form a union to negotiate on their behalf and because there is ALWAYS strength in numbers, the union guys get better pay and benefits than the non union workers.
And the non union workers are so fucking jealous it makes them crazy. I am convinced of that after reading thread after thread of lower middle class workers going on and on about how unions suck. It's amazing.

If they don't want to join a union, then they shouldn't. If they don't want to work in a union shop, don't apply. WTF?

The union haters say the union funds Dems. Yea? And?

The corporations fund Republicans with corporate funds. Yea. And?

It makes them crazy I tell you.

WTF

 

[TooTall]

Government is supposed to be NEUTRAL, ie, neither favoring unionism nor "right to work" laws..

It should be understood that in , what is supposed to be a free nation, individuals ought to have a right to join or not join a union.

They have a right to work if the employer chooses to enter in an employment relationship with the individual. But a "right to work" law is a regulatory statute and should be opposed by all freemen.

Dude is your English not that good??
You really don't seem to have a clue about what we are talking about............

Right to Work, Union Shops, and Union Dues
Can employees be required to join a union or pay dues?

If you take a job that is covered by a contract between the employer and a labor union, a representative of the union will typically approach you about membership requirements shortly after you are hired.

Workers have the right, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), to refuse to join a union. However, some collective bargaining agreements -- the contracts between the employer and the union -- require a company to employ only union workers to do certain jobs. One major reason unions want these contracts is to share the burden of the union's work. The union is required to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, regardless of their union membership. Requiring everyone who gets the benefit of the contract to be a union member solves the problem of so-called "free riders," who reap the windfall of the union's work but don't pay the price.

Generally, a company can't require a worker to become a full union member as a condition of employment, but the worker may have to pay at least some portion of union dues, depending on the basis of his or her objection to the union and the laws of the state where the employer is located.

Unionized work situations generally are either open shop or agency shop. The type of shop that exists within a unionized bargaining unit will be spelled out in the contract between the union representing that unit and the employer. Ask the union representative for a copy of the contract governing your job before you sign up for union membership.

Union Security Agreements and "Right to Work" Laws
The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

However, the NLRA also allows states to prohibit these agreements, and many states have done so. In these states, workers who decide not to join the union cannot be required to pay any fees to the union, nor can they be fired or otherwise penalized for failing to do so. These statutes, called "right to work" laws, basically require that every unionized workplace be an "open shop," in which workers are free to choose whether or not to join or support the union.

Right to Work Union Shops and Union Dues Nolo.com

So to be clear here, it simply gives the non union worker the ability to work a job that union workers are working at the same rate without having to pay "dues" or union fees ....................

So learn fucking English, or get a different line of shit .................................

The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

 

[jc456]

What does "RIGHT TO WORK" mean... what a stupid name. Right to work is a clever way of chiseling away at the rights of workers. This is an anti worker nation. But there is the right to work for lower wages.

It means, Right to Work for Less, as pointed out in the OP.

You leftest fools love your propaganda and love to rewrite history that's one of the reasons why the new generation of rednecks started to vote Republican they didn't want to make crap wages in they fields, they wanted manufacturing jobs and they got it thanks to republican leadership.

Most manufacturing jobs have been shipped over seas, thanks to greedy corporations, and republicans giving them tax breaks to do it.

When was that?

Started around 1987.

Why do you suppose?

 

[jc456]

Something wingnuts don't understand is that man is a social animal.
Progress comes through cooperative activity. Unions negotiate with the combined strength of all the workers.

But those of you who picture yourselves as rugged individuals who rise to the top through your own talents are blinded by your own bullshit and easily divided and conquered.

You bring down the rest of society. But secure in your mythology you'll probably not realize it until it's too late.

You are an angry individual. Must be you are not happy with having to pay dues and go along and have lazy good for nothings making the same money as you doing very little work and still getting credit.

 

[jc456]

What does "RIGHT TO WORK" mean... what a stupid name. Right to work is a clever way of chiseling away at the rights of workers. This is an anti worker nation. But there is the right to work for lower wages.

Government is supposed to be NEUTRAL, ie, neither favoring unionism nor "right to work" laws..


It should be understood that in , what is supposed to be a free nation, individuals ought to have a right to join or not join a union.

They have a right to work if the employer chooses to enter in an employment relationship with the individual. But a "right to work" law is a regulatory statute and should be opposed by all freemen.

I agree with the principle behind your post. Government has no business getting involved in voluntary employer/employee relations. But labor law is already doing that, in a thousand different ways. Right to work just tries to loosen the screws a bit. Ultimately, it's bad law. It should be thrown out. But it should be thrown out along with the bulk of modern labor law.

It's a little like the 'religious-freedom' (anti-gay) laws that some states are passing. It's clearly bad law, but it's instigated by a bad law in the first place. The only clean solution is to do away with both.

Unions destroy prosperity!

 

[SwimExpert]

Wages are not handed out based on your value. They are offered, based on what a company thinks you will settle for, and are negotiated, based on what you can convince the company you might be able to get from somewhere else.

Of course they are paid on "value." Have you ever had a job before? My career is in management and management consulting, I've hired, managed and fired my entire life and you are full of shit, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You're just too much of a nitwit to understand. Jesus Hell, put down the crack pipe for a minute and stop flying off in a blind rage. Everything I have said is true. I draw it out to attention to highlight the fact that the burden of improving workers wages must be upon the individual to assertively pursue the best wages they can possibly achieve, and that the view that employers will, or ought to, simply hand over the better wages is foolish and unproductive.

The point is for an individual to take responsibility for their own wages and to understand how and why the very best and most capable advocate in the world for an individual's improving wages is him/her self.

We pay to get the most value out of the job. You idiot leftists fundamentally don't understand business. Our priority is not lower cost, it's ... wait for it ... profit.

Profit = revenue - cost.

So let me get this straight....you pay for value, your priority is profit, profit is what's left after you subtract cost....yet lowering cost is not a priority?

Okay, now I know that you're full of shit. You haven't managed anything a day in your life. You just contradicted yourself! Minimizing costs is fundamentally an element of profit. If you can generate the same revenue with 10% less costs, then that creates more profit. Duh!

"Value" is your contribution to profit.

This is ridiculously overly simplified, and if your career claims are true (as vague as they are) then you ought to already know that. At this point, I find it very difficult to believe your claims when you make such absurdly overly simplified statements like this.

First of all, an individual's "contribution" to profit is usually difficult to ascertain in the first place. What dollar figure can you put on a janitor's contribution to profit? That's next to impossible to actually assign a hard value to. Second, how can you identify the precise contribution to profit of an individual who does not yet work for you? You can't. At best, you can imagine a rough estimate of how well they will be able to do their job, based on their past experience and your personal interactions with them during the interviewing process.

But let's imagine for a moment that by some form of slut magic a precise figure can be attached to my "contribution." Let's say that figure is determined to be $500,000 on the year. What is my "value"? According to you, my value is $500,000. Should that be my salary for the year?

Any employer who is going to do that is a damned fool and won't be in business very long. Anyone who really does have the (albeit vague) experience that you claim (and insinuate) you have would not be such a damned fool (unless you simply have the IQ of downs baby with brain damage). Even if I can accurately determine an individual's "contribution" to profit is $500,000 there's no way in hell I'm going to pay them that much money. Because if I do, there's no profit left in the first place! Except for them. But as an employer, I get nothing. What I'm going to pay that person is as little as I can get away with. Always. If I can get that $500,000 from a $30,000 a year employee, then that's what I'm going to pay. If the lowest I can get that $500,000 a year is $90,000, then that's what I'll have to pay. On the other hand, if I can get $600,000 a year for someone at $100,000, then I'll take option B.

We don't hire based only on cost, we hire to maximize profit.

And the Captain Obvious award of the day goes to Kaz!

I never said that hires are made based only on costs. Congratulations tearing down that straw man.

The negotiating room is based on the profit question. What should I pay to maximize profit? We pay more for employees who bring in revenue, we pay more for employees who will help us serve and keep our customers, we pay more for employees who reduce defects.

And? You just admitted that job offers include negotiating room. No employer is going to open the discussion by offering the maximum, unless they have a very good reason for believing that you aren't going to be accept for anything less. So thanks for conceding my point.

We don't underpay because that demotivates good employees.

That's not necessarily true. Some employers do under pay what their employees can easily get elsewhere. But typically it's because the employee's value has not be fairly assessed, or because the employee has settled for a long time at a lower rate while their experience and skill has increased over time, but the employee has not made any attempt to seek improved pay.

The leftist view that employees are socket wrenches and one is interchangeable with another and it doesn't matter what we pay so we simply turn the screws to make it as little as possible is just your Marxist mental masturbation with no connection to reality

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Stop inserting absurd tangents.

That you don't give a shit about your job or your employer, you do as little as possible and you have a bad attitude is why your value is low and why your pay is low

I do what? You're a damned fool. I'm damned good at my job. Which is exactly why I get paid well for it. It's why I am being paid 12% more than what the company originally offered me. It's the reason why I had several job offers at the time, and why the original offer I got from my current employer was the max of the range they originally anticipated for my position. According to you, that's impossible. The company had a range, anything above that range wouldn't maximize profit, so the counter I made should have been rejected. So why did they meet my requests? Because they wanted the best, and they know that if you want the best you have to pay for the best. I convinced them that there was a good chance I could get the pay I was asking for somewhere else, so they expanded their pay range in order to secure me. So I got the best pay and the best position, they got the best candidate. The second company that was just an okay option got an okay candidate, the third company that wanted to hold fast and hoped to lowball me and work me to death all at the same time ended up with a lowball quality warm body.

 

[Muhammed]

What does "RIGHT TO WORK" mean... what a stupid name. Right to work is a clever way of chiseling away at the rights of workers. This is an anti worker nation. But there is the right to work for lower wages.

Government is supposed to be NEUTRAL, ie, neither favoring unionism nor "right to work" laws..


It should be understood that in , what is supposed to be a free nation, individuals ought to have a right to join or not join a union.

They have a right to work if the employer chooses to enter in an employment relationship with the individual. But a "right to work" law is a regulatory statute and should be opposed by all freemen.

I agree with the principle behind your post. Government has no business getting involved in voluntary employer/employee relations. But labor law is already doing that, in a thousand different ways. Right to work just tries to loosen the screws a bit. Ultimately, it's bad law. It should be thrown out. But it should be thrown out along with the bulk of modern labor law.

It's a little like the 'religious-freedom' (anti-gay) laws that some states are passing. It's clearly bad law, but it's instigated by a bad law in the first place. The only clean solution is to do away with both.

Unions destroy prosperity!

Isn't that a bit of an overgeneralization?

 

[Mr Natural]

Unions destroy prosperity!

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Government is supposed to be NEUTRAL, ie, neither favoring unionism nor "right to work" laws..

It should be understood that in , what is supposed to be a free nation, individuals ought to have a right to join or not join a union.

They have a right to work if the employer chooses to enter in an employment relationship with the individual. But a "right to work" law is a regulatory statute and should be opposed by all freemen.

Dude is your English not that good??
You really don't seem to have a clue about what we are talking about............

Right to Work, Union Shops, and Union Dues
Can employees be required to join a union or pay dues?

If you take a job that is covered by a contract between the employer and a labor union, a representative of the union will typically approach you about membership requirements shortly after you are hired.

Workers have the right, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), to refuse to join a union. However, some collective bargaining agreements -- the contracts between the employer and the union -- require a company to employ only union workers to do certain jobs. One major reason unions want these contracts is to share the burden of the union's work. The union is required to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, regardless of their union membership. Requiring everyone who gets the benefit of the contract to be a union member solves the problem of so-called "free riders," who reap the windfall of the union's work but don't pay the price.

Generally, a company can't require a worker to become a full union member as a condition of employment, but the worker may have to pay at least some portion of union dues, depending on the basis of his or her objection to the union and the laws of the state where the employer is located.

Unionized work situations generally are either open shop or agency shop. The type of shop that exists within a unionized bargaining unit will be spelled out in the contract between the union representing that unit and the employer. Ask the union representative for a copy of the contract governing your job before you sign up for union membership.

Union Security Agreements and "Right to Work" Laws
The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

However, the NLRA also allows states to prohibit these agreements, and many states have done so. In these states, workers who decide not to join the union cannot be required to pay any fees to the union, nor can they be fired or otherwise penalized for failing to do so. These statutes, called "right to work" laws, basically require that every unionized workplace be an "open shop," in which workers are free to choose whether or not to join or support the union.

Right to Work Union Shops and Union Dues Nolo.com

So to be clear here, it simply gives the non union worker the ability to work a job that union workers are working at the same rate without having to pay "dues" or union fees ....................

So learn fucking English, or get a different line of shit .................................

The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

What point are you trying to make??
The clause you reference deals with National Labor Relations act, has nothing to do with "right to work statues" except for the fact that those are covered in the act also. The paragraph which you quote speaks of "closed or union shop" to work in these shops unions due's or agency fees must be paid regardless of an individual's feeling's about unions or paying dues.

The "right to work act or statues", that 24 of the 50 states now have, prohibit that type of extortionist / forced paying of dues by similarly skilled workers who refuse to pay union dues or agency fees.

What part of this is not fucking sinking in??

RIGHT TO WORK LAWS KEEP UNIONS FROM BULLYING NON UNION WORKERS??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Unions destroy prosperity!

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

Once again, gin up that crack head base by telling the lie of lower wages ..........................

You have yet to prove ANYONE GETS LOWER WAGES, the unions just don't get to extort money or keep the better paying jobs .......................