The Right to Work for less money

[beretta304]

Joining the union is a condition of employment like any other condition of employment, if that is what the employer and employees have agreed to in a contract.

Keyword: "if". Who writes the contract, the union or the employer?

You've never heard of 'negotiations'?

And if the employees and the employer agree not to have a union then you have no issue with that right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, I'm proven right whenever I've said that all conservative policies and positions regarding economic issues are designed to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Right to work is one more example. Weaken labor, drive down wages, people get poorer.

You're a legend in your own mind!

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

Prove me wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually idiot....Obamination has put more people on Food Stamps than any other POTUS in history.

His policy is to drive people out of their jobs with higher corporate taxes and regulations, along with Obamacare so that people will just be sucked into the Govt web of welfare.

He knows people on welfare will keep voting for scum liberals like you....so in the end the middle class goes away and there are the rich and the poor in this country. Obamination knows liberal rich people will vote his way, so conservatism would die.

Once again, I'm proven right whenever I've said that all conservative policies and positions regarding economic issues are designed to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Right to work is one more example. Weaken labor, drive down wages, people get poorer.

So unions don't get people higher wages? What's your problem with them then?

 

[Sallow]

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

Well no.

But thanks for playing.

It is though. License means pay to play. Patents are completely voluntary.

Um...both things operate on the very same principles that Unions do.

Pay to play and completely voluntary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keyword: "if". Who writes the contract, the union or the employer?

You've never heard of 'negotiations'?

And if the employees and the employer agree not to have a union then you have no issue with that right?

If they agree not to what's the issue?

 

[kwc57]

Once again, I'm proven right whenever I've said that all conservative policies and positions regarding economic issues are designed to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Right to work is one more example. Weaken labor, drive down wages, people get poorer.

You're a legend in your own mind!

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 **** the poor. I'm sure you have many examples. Go.

 

[eflatminor]

Joining the union is a condition of employment like any other condition of employment, if that is what the employer and employees have agreed to in a contract.

And if that condition of employment was to join the Republican party, you'd have no problem with that, right?

You've already asked me, and I answered. But I think it's worth pointing that I would, in fact, have quite a problem with it. I wouldn't work for such a company, and would likely avoid doing business with them. But it doesn't violate anyone's rights for them to make such ridiculous demands, and it should not be illegal.

Again, I appreciate your consistency.

Truth be told, this topic was not an easy one for me to determine my position. On one hand, I think a private business should be free to hire whomever they like. I am against government meddling in business in general.

However, I do not think anyone, government or business, should be able to force an individual to do anything outside of that place of employment and I particularly stand against government (or business) telling individuals how to spend their money.

This may be akin to drug testing in the workplace. Here's an example: Let's say you operate a dangerous machine, like flying a plane. Your employer, I believe, absolutely has the right to make sure you're not under the influence when you fly that plane. However, I do NOT believe your employer has the right to know if you smoked a joint three weeks prior, during your personal time.

So, if an employer wants to force a worker to join a work place committee to tackle issues like worker safety, that's fine. It's reasonably part of the worker's job. However, if the employer forces the worker to pay to fund an outside organization, I think that's going too far, a violation of an individual's right to spend the fruits of their labor as they like.

It's a balance I think, but that's where I fall in my thinking...at least right now

 

[WillowTree]

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?

bamie is bought and paid for by the unions, what else did you expect the dingbat to say?

 

[kwc57]

Actually idiot....Obamination has put more people on Food Stamps than any other POTUS in history.

His policy is to drive people out of their jobs with higher corporate taxes and regulations, along with Obamacare so that people will just be sucked into the Govt web of welfare.

He knows people on welfare will keep voting for scum liberals like you....so in the end the middle class goes away and there are the rich and the poor in this country. Obamination knows liberal rich people will vote his way, so conservatism would die.

Once again, I'm proven right whenever I've said that all conservative policies and positions regarding economic issues are designed to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Right to work is one more example. Weaken labor, drive down wages, people get poorer.

So unions don't get people higher wages? What's your problem with them then?

Union demands often end up hurting companies. Back when there was a GM plant in Oklahoma City, I knew a good number of people I grew up with that worked for them. On average, they worked about 3 months out of the year and were on furlough the other 9 months. Their jobs were protected by the union. GM couldn't right size their workforce. They paid people to sit around at home doing nothing. That ends up costing the company a lot more money than necessary and it gets passed down to the consumer.

 

[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.

 

[SniperFire]

You're a legend in your own mind!

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 **** the poor. I'm sure you have many examples. Go.

I am guessing this will be Wad Catchers third punt in this thread alone.


LOL

 

[WillowTree]

If you are talking about Michigan in particular, they already have the right to work for less money. In Michigan workers can opt out of unions. And opt out of benefiting from collective bargaining.

Did you let Michigan in on that news? Cause they're getting set to vote right now on whether to become a right to work state.

 

[Polk]

You're a legend in your own mind!

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 **** 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.

 

[WillowTree]

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 **** 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.

 

[Polk]

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.

 

[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 **** 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.

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.

 

[SniperFire]

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 **** 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?

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

 

[dblack]

Truth be told, this topic was not an easy one for me to determine my position. On one hand, I think a private business should be free to hire whomever they like. I am against government meddling in business in general.

However, I do not think anyone, government or business, should be able to force an individual to do anything outside of that place of employment and I particularly stand against government (or business) telling individuals how to spend their money.

But do you understand the difference between government and business telling you how to spend your money? Business can 'tell' all they want, but we can 'tell' them to go get fucked. Law is different. Defy that and you go to jail (or worse).

This seems to be key disconnect between libertarians and progressives. Progressive don't seem to recognize any difference between the coercive power of the state and economic power, yet it's a vital distinction. Sadly, it's a distinction that is becoming more and more blurred, as businesses lobby the state to do their bidding, and government becomes more involved in telling business how to conduct their affairs. We should be working to reverse this trend rather than indulging more of the same.

This may be akin to drug testing in the workplace. Here's an example: Let's say you operate a dangerous machine, like flying a plane. Your employer, I believe, absolutely has the right to make sure you're not under the influence when you fly that plane. However, I do NOT believe your employer has the right to know if you smoked a joint three weeks prior, during your personal time.

Well, I certainly don't believe the employer has a 'right' to pry into my personal affairs, but they can ask. And they can refuse to offer me a job, or fire me, if I refuse. I guess what this comes down to is that you're seeing the act of firing someone, or perhaps not hiring them, as coercive, and I'm not.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

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?