Union approval at 53% while 71% favor right-to-work laws

[Wyatt earp]

People finally see how successful Republican policy in the Red states are:
A slim majority of Americans, 53%, approve of labor unions, although approval remains on the low end of Gallup's nearly 80-year trend on this question. Approval has been as high as 75% in the 1950s. Currently, 38% disapprove of unions
Americans Approve of Unions but Support Right to Work

 

[Roadrunner]

People finally see how successful Republican policy in the Red states are:
A slim majority of Americans, 53%, approve of labor unions, although approval remains on the low end of Gallup's nearly 80-year trend on this question. Approval has been as high as 75% in the 1950s. Currently, 38% disapprove of unions

Approval may be 53%, membership is about 6%.

Take out the number in public employee unions, and it is about 3%.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The link says only 10 percent admit they are in a Union

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think Americans think of Unions of the 20s ~ 50s

These are not your grandfathers unions of today

Or maybe the European style unions?

I guess the average American likes the idea of a union the same way they like progressive ideas, until reality slaps them in the face and think what's the point of a Union when the company closes up and leaves?

 

[thereisnospoon]

People finally see how successful Republican policy in the Red states are:
A slim majority of Americans, 53%, approve of labor unions, although approval remains on the low end of Gallup's nearly 80-year trend on this question. Approval has been as high as 75% in the 1950s. Currently, 38% disapprove of unions
Americans Approve of Unions but Support Right to Work

Meanwhile just 7% of the private sector employment is covered by labor collectives.
This poll is kind of BS.... As it applies to their poll, Gallup does not qualify the meaning of "approve". .

 

[thereisnospoon]

People finally see how successful Republican policy in the Red states are:
A slim majority of Americans, 53%, approve of labor unions, although approval remains on the low end of Gallup's nearly 80-year trend on this question. Approval has been as high as 75% in the 1950s. Currently, 38% disapprove of unions

Approval may be 53%, membership is about 6%.

Take out the number in public employee unions, and it is about 3%.

Actually if public employee membership is added in, union membership goes to a total of about 11%...
I think roughly 18% of public employees are members of unions.
Now that does not mean all of those workers have similar rights.
For example. In NC public employees can and do join unions. However according to state law, public employees have no right to collective bargaining.
In NC "collective bargaining" is considered unlawful collusion.
Just as businesses are prohibited by law from "fixing" local wages, workers who are also members of unions are prohibited from doing the same

 

[SwimExpert]

"Right to work" is an interesting phrase. It used to be that "right to work" referred to employee friendly state laws that (in theory) protected employees from arbitrary dismissal and punishment, had generous unemployment and workman's comp policies, strong wage laws, etc. Often times this idealism was partially achieved by state laws being union friendly, with a strong union presence in the state helping workers to secure strong wages. The thinking was that people had a fundamental right to work (and thus earn a living) which should not be left to the mercy of a fickle employer who could effectively leverage the threat of unemployment to coerce an employee. It was contrasted by at-will policy.

Now, the phrase is perverted into meaning "anti-union." As if, the unions were responsible for low wages and bad working conditions. This is absolutely non-sensical, although it makes for convenient political talking points. It's on par with "death tax" and "pay their fair share." Nothing more than appealing sounds to the ear, invoking emotions without regard to factual information.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Right to work" is an interesting phrase. It used to be that "right to work" referred to employee friendly state laws that (in theory) protected employees from arbitrary dismissal and punishment, had generous unemployment and workman's comp policies, strong wage laws, etc. Often times this idealism was partially achieved by state laws being union friendly, with a strong union presence in the state helping workers to secure strong wages. The thinking was that people had a fundamental right to work (and thus earn a living) which should not be left to the mercy of a fickle employer who could effectively leverage the threat of unemployment to coerce an employee. It was contrasted by at-will policy.

Now, the phrase is perverted into meaning "anti-union." As if, the unions were responsible for low wages and bad working conditions. This is absolutely non-sensical, although it makes for convenient political talking points. It's on par with "death tax" and "pay their fair share." Nothing more than appealing sounds to the ear, invoking emotions without regard to factual information.

Yea sometimes when I get ticked off I dont call it a right to work, I call it a right to get fired state, a few good coworkers over the years got fired at the companies I worked for for trumped up charges..

The bottom line they were really good at what they did, Didn't bother me for trivia nonsense machine issues, it was personal between them and their boss.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I really wish we could get the European style unions here, but you have to change minds, VW was really close in Tennessee, but most Americans have such a bad personal experience taste in their mouths they don't want to work for them, American Unions really have to change and do a major P.R. Campaign

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Right to work" is an interesting phrase. It used to be that "right to work" referred to employee friendly state laws that (in theory) protected employees from arbitrary dismissal and punishment, had generous unemployment and workman's comp policies, strong wage laws, etc. Often times this idealism was partially achieved by state laws being union friendly, with a strong union presence in the state helping workers to secure strong wages. The thinking was that people had a fundamental right to work (and thus earn a living) which should not be left to the mercy of a fickle employer who could effectively leverage the threat of unemployment to coerce an employee. It was contrasted by at-will policy.

Now, the phrase is perverted into meaning "anti-union." As if, the unions were responsible for low wages and bad working conditions. This is absolutely non-sensical, although it makes for convenient political talking points. It's on par with "death tax" and "pay their fair share." Nothing more than appealing sounds to the ear, invoking emotions without regard to factual information.

Just admit that :"anti- union" is YOUR opinion...
Right to work is actually a worker rights concept.
Mandatory collection of union dues is nothing more than coercion.
The fact that the money is used mainly for political donations which are one sided to democrats is the major reason why Right to Work laws are in place in 25 ( And growing) states.

 

[SwimExpert]

Just admit that :"anti- union" is YOUR opinion.

No.

Right to work is actually a worker rights concept.

The original "right to work" principles were. Now, what is called "right to work" is merely anti-union propaganda.

Mandatory collection of union dues is nothing more than coercion.

Inasmuch as a person chooses to be in a union, there is nothing mandatory or coercive. There is no law anywhere that forces people to join a union.

The fact that the money is used mainly for political donations which are one sided to democrats is the major reason why Right to Work laws are in place in 25 ( And growing) states.

Which goes to show that all you're worried about is politics. There's an insane amount of special interests money in politics. Me personally, I'd like to get the money out of politics altogether. But you're just worried about the money that supports Democrats. Pretty pathetic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just admit that :"anti- union" is YOUR opinion.

No.

Right to work is actually a worker rights concept.

The original "right to work" principles were. Now, what is called "right to work" is merely anti-union propaganda.

Mandatory collection of union dues is nothing more than coercion.

Inasmuch as a person chooses to be in a union, there is nothing mandatory or coercive. There is no law anywhere that forces people to join a union.

The fact that the money is used mainly for political donations which are one sided to democrats is the major reason why Right to Work laws are in place in 25 ( And growing) states.

Which goes to show that all you're worried about is politics. There's an insane amount of special interests money in politics. Me personally, I'd like to get the money out of politics altogether. But you're just worried about the money that supports Democrats. Pretty pathetic.

I'm not "worried" about politics.
The concern is that the relationship between unions and the democrat party is incestuous. New Jersey is a perfect example.
for the last 3 decades, the public worker union bosses have been in bed with a complicit democrat party.
The unions promise tons of money in return for favorable legislation from those they help elect.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, this is the way politics works.
However, the problem lies in the fact that the effect is widespread. As a result of the relationship between the unions and democrats, NJ has become a tax nightmare. Especially for both property and business owners.
Public worker wages and benefit packages have become lucrative at the expense of taxpayers. And this is all due to the ties unions have with democrats.
As opposed to the relationship with the private sector in which consumers have a choice . As for public worker unions, the taxpayers are trapped.

 

[SwimExpert]

Just admit that :"anti- union" is YOUR opinion.

No.

Right to work is actually a worker rights concept.

The original "right to work" principles were. Now, what is called "right to work" is merely anti-union propaganda.

Mandatory collection of union dues is nothing more than coercion.

Inasmuch as a person chooses to be in a union, there is nothing mandatory or coercive. There is no law anywhere that forces people to join a union.

The fact that the money is used mainly for political donations which are one sided to democrats is the major reason why Right to Work laws are in place in 25 ( And growing) states.

Which goes to show that all you're worried about is politics. There's an insane amount of special interests money in politics. Me personally, I'd like to get the money out of politics altogether. But you're just worried about the money that supports Democrats. Pretty pathetic.

I'm not "worried" about politics.
The concern is that the relationship between unions and the democrat party is incestuous. New Jersey is a perfect example.
for the last 3 decades, the public worker union bosses have been in bed with a complicit democrat party.
The unions promise tons of money in return for favorable legislation from those they help elect.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, this is the way politics works.
However, the problem lies in the fact that the effect is widespread. As a result of the relationship between the unions and democrats, NJ has become a tax nightmare. Especially for both property and business owners.
Public worker wages and benefit packages have become lucrative at the expense of taxpayers. And this is all due to the ties unions have with democrats.
As opposed to the relationship with the private sector in which consumers have a choice . As for public worker unions, the taxpayers are trapped.

And yet you don't bother to mention how Republicans are in bed with big money special interests themselves. That's why everything you're saying is purely political BS. If the Unions were paying off the Republicans, you'd have no problems.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just admit that :"anti- union" is YOUR opinion.

No.

Right to work is actually a worker rights concept.

The original "right to work" principles were. Now, what is called "right to work" is merely anti-union propaganda.

Mandatory collection of union dues is nothing more than coercion.

Inasmuch as a person chooses to be in a union, there is nothing mandatory or coercive. There is no law anywhere that forces people to join a union.

The fact that the money is used mainly for political donations which are one sided to democrats is the major reason why Right to Work laws are in place in 25 ( And growing) states.

Which goes to show that all you're worried about is politics. There's an insane amount of special interests money in politics. Me personally, I'd like to get the money out of politics altogether. But you're just worried about the money that supports Democrats. Pretty pathetic.

I'm not "worried" about politics.
The concern is that the relationship between unions and the democrat party is incestuous. New Jersey is a perfect example.
for the last 3 decades, the public worker union bosses have been in bed with a complicit democrat party.
The unions promise tons of money in return for favorable legislation from those they help elect.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, this is the way politics works.
However, the problem lies in the fact that the effect is widespread. As a result of the relationship between the unions and democrats, NJ has become a tax nightmare. Especially for both property and business owners.
Public worker wages and benefit packages have become lucrative at the expense of taxpayers. And this is all due to the ties unions have with democrats.
As opposed to the relationship with the private sector in which consumers have a choice . As for public worker unions, the taxpayers are trapped.

And yet you don't bother to mention how Republicans are in bed with big money special interests themselves. That's why everything you're saying is purely political BS. If the Unions were paying off the Republicans, you'd have no problems.

Hey sunshine....The subject matter had precisely ZERO to do with the GOP...
Now, define "special interest"....That lib talking point buzz term used to deflect attention away from themselves..
So what are we talking about here?.....BTW name ONE company or entity which represents a segment of the public that has a track record of virtual nil donations to GOP candidates or the Party...
Unions representing public employees whose wages and benefits are funded by a captive marketplace( taxpayers) donate to complicit politicians who then grant all the items demanded by the unions. And it costs them nothing because then the politicians turn around and increase taxes.
Big corps....AT&T, Large national banks, Hollywood entertainment conglomerates( Sony Pictures for one) financial institutions, GM, to name a few ALL all make significantly larger contributions to democrat candidates and liberal causes.
Why would the unions "pay off" the GOP?....I find it amusing as you infer that union donations to the democrat party are a "pay off"....
Damn, you are amazing. And you have no valid argument here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So,

the Right has wanted less and less union power and membership since forever,

and in the last 50 years they've gotten it.

What got better? Are there more better paying non-union jobs out there? Is the middle class doing better?

You got what you wanted, RWnuts, so show us you were right. Show that the American working class is better off than it was 50 years ago...all things considered...

 

[The Rabbi]

"Right to work" is an interesting phrase. It used to be that "right to work" referred to employee friendly state laws that (in theory) protected employees from arbitrary dismissal and punishment, had generous unemployment and workman's comp policies, strong wage laws, etc. Often times this idealism was partially achieved by state laws being union friendly, with a strong union presence in the state helping workers to secure strong wages. The thinking was that people had a fundamental right to work (and thus earn a living) which should not be left to the mercy of a fickle employer who could effectively leverage the threat of unemployment to coerce an employee. It was contrasted by at-will policy.

Now, the phrase is perverted into meaning "anti-union." As if, the unions were responsible for low wages and bad working conditions. This is absolutely non-sensical, although it makes for convenient political talking points. It's on par with "death tax" and "pay their fair share." Nothing more than appealing sounds to the ear, invoking emotions without regard to factual information.

Link?
Because "Right To Work" always meant the right not to join a union if you didnt want to. "An Open Shop is the American Way" goes back to the 1920s.

 

[The Rabbi]

So,

the Right has wanted less and less union power and membership since forever,

and in the last 50 years they've gotten it.

What got better? Are there more better paying non-union jobs out there? Is the middle class doing better?

You got what you wanted, RWnuts, so show us you were right. Show that the American working class is better off than it was 50 years ago...all things considered...

It is actually. The standard of living is much higher. Fewer people are engaged in mundane and dangerous factory work. Productivity is enormously better. A factory with 10 employees today can produce what used to take 300.
What was your point again?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So,

the Right has wanted less and less union power and membership since forever,

and in the last 50 years they've gotten it.

What got better? Are there more better paying non-union jobs out there? Is the middle class doing better?

You got what you wanted, RWnuts, so show us you were right. Show that the American working class is better off than it was 50 years ago...all things considered...

Again the south got the jobs that would have gone to the North, what is so ******* hard to comprehend? Clemson University a few miles from me used to have 4 year degrees in the textile industry, now they dont have any, when Clinton and the republican controlled congress stopped subsidizing the US textile industry, Now Clemson is partners with BMW and Michelin in car technology, and a lot of other high tech.

With out RTW, BMW probably wouldnt have moved here and with out the textile industry, this state today wouldnt have a 5.7% unemployment rate, would be more like 8% with only minimum wage jobs, not $12 ~ $30 dollar an hour plus manufacturing jobs

Whats so hard to get?

Also I wish, my fellow Americans would study the German style unions, if we had them here, Hostess Wouldn't have closed up out of spite from the bakers union., I would join a German style union they are both fair to the employees and companies

 

[NYcarbineer]

So,

the Right has wanted less and less union power and membership since forever,

and in the last 50 years they've gotten it.

What got better? Are there more better paying non-union jobs out there? Is the middle class doing better?

You got what you wanted, RWnuts, so show us you were right. Show that the American working class is better off than it was 50 years ago...all things considered...

Again the south got the jobs that would have gone to the North, what is so ******* hard to comprehend? Clemson University a few miles from me used to have 4 year degrees in the textile industry, now they dont have any, when Clinton and the republican controlled congress stopped subsidizing the US textile industry, Now Clemson is partners with BMW and Michelin in car technology, and a lot of other high tech.

With out RTW, BMW probably wouldnt have moved here and with out the textile industry, this state today wouldnt have a 5.7% unemployment rate, would be more like 8% with only minimum wage jobs, not $12 ~ $30 dollar an hour plus manufacturing jobs

Whats so hard to get?

Also I wish, my fellow Americans would study the German style unions, if we had them here, Hostess Wouldn't have closed up out of spite from the bakers union., I would join a German style union they are both fair to the employees and companies

Your post has nothing to do with my post.

btw, one region of the country cannibalizing jobs from another doesn't make the country better off.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Unions are clearly in trouble, but with a couple of tweaks, they could be saved and prosper.

That would require maturity and cooperation from our "leaders", so don't hold your breath on THAT one.

.