Workers rally for their rights in West Va

[Preacher]

Working People Rally Against Right to Work Law

They should be pissed. Love how republicans rail against free shit yet under these new rules the unions MUST defend you even if you REFUSE to pay your union dues....aka FREE SHIT. I hope the workers vote the bastards out!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Oh, a "large group of people", eh?

Too funny.

 

[Preacher]

Oh, a "large group of people", eh?

Too funny.

I'm sure its hilarious to you. Lowering wages,not allowing workers to fight back together is just fucking hilarious. In the state where the miners had their blood drawn to gain the right for better wages,working conditions and safety.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Oh, a "large group of people", eh?

Too funny.

I'm sure its hilarious to you. Lowering wages,not allowing workers to fight back together is just fucking hilarious. In the state where the miners had their blood drawn to gain the right for better wages,working conditions and safety.

Billy hands you a dry hankie that he used earlier.

 

[sealybobo]

Working People Rally Against Right to Work Law

They should be pissed. Love how republicans rail against free shit yet under these new rules the unions MUST defend you even if you REFUSE to pay your union dues....aka FREE SHIT. I hope the workers vote the bastards out!

They have no idea how good they got it with collective bargaining

 

[Wyatt earp]

Working People Rally Against Right to Work Law

They should be pissed. Love how republicans rail against free shit yet under these new rules the unions MUST defend you even if you REFUSE to pay your union dues....aka FREE SHIT. I hope the workers vote the bastards out!

Moral of story, vote in the midterms.

 

[Manonthestreet]

West VA should really be paying reparations to the world for all that gaia killing mining,,,,,,just close it all down

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

West VA should really be paying reparations to the world for all that gaia killing mining,,,,,,just close it all down

Pffft. Gaia. Watching Disney movies again?

 

[Granny]

Maybe there is another way to look at this. First of all, I'll admit I'm anti-union - I got a first hand look at union strong arm tactics right out of high school and vowed I would never join a union and I never did. I also worked for labor lawyers at one point in my career. But you're right, Odium, in right-to-work states, people who don't join the unions DO benefit from some benefits afforded by unions ... but here's my question: Doesn't everybody have a right to work and provide for their families? Why the hell would anybody PAY a union for the right to work? You should not HAVE to join a union in order to work, put a roof over your head and feed and clothe your family.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I think right-to-work laws should be changed to say that a person cannot be fired "with or without cause." There should be a legitimate reason for someone to be fired from a job and the person should know exactly what that reason is.

This could be a very long post, but I'll leave it where it is since this is just the 2nd post on this thread (unless, of course someone else hit "post" before I have).

 

[Manonthestreet]

Unions have protected their workers so well their pensions are disappearing faster and faster...... and why as a non-union worker would I trust a union to do right by me........anybody that stupid deserves what they get

 

[Preacher]

Maybe there is another way to look at this. First of all, I'll admit I'm anti-union - I got a first hand look at union strong arm tactics right out of high school and vowed I would never join a union and I never did. I also worked for labor lawyers at one point in my career. But you're right, Odium, in right-to-work states, people who don't join the unions DO benefit from some benefits afforded by unions ... but here's my question: Doesn't everybody have a right to work and provide for their families? Why the hell would anybody PAY a union for the right to work? You should not HAVE to join a union in order to work, put a roof over your head and feed and clothe your family.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I think right-to-work laws should be changed to say that a person cannot be fired "with or without cause." There should be a legitimate reason for someone to be fired from a job and the person should know exactly what that reason is.

This could be a very long post, but I'll leave it where it is since this is just the 2nd post on this thread (unless, of course someone else hit "post" before I have).

Don't want to join the Union fine but then the Union shouldn't be forced to take care of YOU when problems arise which is what I read is happening.

 

[Granny]

I should have expanded or made more clear what I was saying. "Benefits" for non-union members are things like making the same wages as union members, having stated break times or lunch times as union employees. "Benefits" don't include things like union representation in a firing situation or union healthcare/medical benefit plans. The non-union people would be covered under the company's healthcare/medical plan - which in some instances is better than union plans.

As an example, my daughter's ex was a crane operator and also had his truck driver's CDL. His dad, who worked at the same place kept all over his ass to join the crane operators' union and my daughter kept telling him to stay out of it. Daddy and Mommy won, and jackass joined the union. IMMEDIATELY, he lost his company healthcare/medical benefits and was picked up under the union's plan. Sure, the premiums were a lot lower ... but they went from a plan that covered everything to a plan that didn't cover jackshit. My daughter had worked in the insurance industry and she damned well knew her stuff - and she was royally pissed off.

Unions create issues for employers that are very costly - monies they might have been able to use for the benefit of all their employees are, instead, used (wasted) on frivolous BS dealing with unions ... most of it going to massive legal expenses defending BS lawsuits.

Was there a time when the unions really were necessary to ease the "sweatshop" working conditions? Yes - absolutely. Today - not so much. There have been so many workers' rights laws enacted to protect the safety and welfare of employees that there's no real reason as there was way back when. You have no idea how much trouble and money unions cost employers - and the only real winners in the unions are those few people at the very top of the union ladder.

 

[Lakhota]

Two things:

1. By law, no person is required to pay union dues.

2. Right-to-work means they don't even have to pay "agency fees" which are the cost of bargaining/representation and have nothing to do with politics or political campaigns.

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.

 

[whitehall]

The West Virginia coal industry (including union workers) was killed by idiot democrat global warmers and Hussein Obama. Now idiot socialists are worried about right to work clerks in Walmart.

 

[Coyote]

I should have expanded or made more clear what I was saying. "Benefits" for non-union members are things like making the same wages as union members, having stated break times or lunch times as union employees. "Benefits" don't include things like union representation in a firing situation or union healthcare/medical benefit plans. The non-union people would be covered under the company's healthcare/medical plan - which in some instances is better than union plans.

As an example, my daughter's ex was a crane operator and also had his truck driver's CDL. His dad, who worked at the same place kept all over his ass to join the crane operators' union and my daughter kept telling him to stay out of it. Daddy and Mommy won, and jackass joined the union. IMMEDIATELY, he lost his company healthcare/medical benefits and was picked up under the union's plan. Sure, the premiums were a lot lower ... but they went from a plan that covered everything to a plan that didn't cover jackshit. My daughter had worked in the insurance industry and she damned well knew her stuff - and she was royally pissed off.

Unions create issues for employers that are very costly - monies they might have been able to use for the benefit of all their employees are, instead, used (wasted) on frivolous BS dealing with unions ... most of it going to massive legal expenses defending BS lawsuits.

Was there a time when the unions really were necessary to ease the "sweatshop" working conditions? Yes - absolutely. Today - not so much. There have been so many workers' rights laws enacted to protect the safety and welfare of employees that there's no real reason as there was way back when. You have no idea how much trouble and money unions cost employers - and the only real winners in the unions are those few people at the very top of the union ladder.

""Benefits" for non-union members are things like making the same wages as union members" - why should they make the same wages as union members? Those wages were bargained for by the unions.

 

[Coyote]

The West Virginia coal industry (including union workers) was killed by idiot democrat global warmers and Hussein Obama. Now idiot socialists are worried about right to work clerks in Walmart.

Coal is being by the cheaper and cleaner natural gas.

 

[Coyote]

What's happening in WV is this - a pre-packaged set of outside interest generated legislative packages is being pushed through by the Republican majority. Most has little to do with what the state really needs and mirrors what is being pushed in other diverse Republican states - union busting, so-called religious right to discriminate laws, lowing wages, pushing charter schools, etc. None of those were on the election platforms.

 

[Granny]

Well, when you work for labor lawyers, unions become a real pain in the ass. I got so frigging irritated doing Excelsior Lists that I finally designed a little way to deal with them - and my fellow secretarial friends were delighted when I shared it with them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Maybe there is another way to look at this. First of all, I'll admit I'm anti-union - I got a first hand look at union strong arm tactics right out of high school and vowed I would never join a union and I never did. I also worked for labor lawyers at one point in my career. But you're right, Odium, in right-to-work states, people who don't join the unions DO benefit from some benefits afforded by unions ... but here's my question: Doesn't everybody have a right to work and provide for their families? Why the hell would anybody PAY a union for the right to work? You should not HAVE to join a union in order to work, put a roof over your head and feed and clothe your family.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I think right-to-work laws should be changed to say that a person cannot be fired "with or without cause." There should be a legitimate reason for someone to be fired from a job and the person should know exactly what that reason is.

This could be a very long post, but I'll leave it where it is since this is just the 2nd post on this thread (unless, of course someone else hit "post" before I have).

Don't want to join the Union fine but then the Union shouldn't be forced to take care of YOU when problems arise which is what I read is happening.

Yet you have no problem in States that require teachers for example to pay Union dues even if they do not want to be in the Union, right?

 

[Lakhota]

Maybe there is another way to look at this. First of all, I'll admit I'm anti-union - I got a first hand look at union strong arm tactics right out of high school and vowed I would never join a union and I never did. I also worked for labor lawyers at one point in my career. But you're right, Odium, in right-to-work states, people who don't join the unions DO benefit from some benefits afforded by unions ... but here's my question: Doesn't everybody have a right to work and provide for their families? Why the hell would anybody PAY a union for the right to work? You should not HAVE to join a union in order to work, put a roof over your head and feed and clothe your family.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I think right-to-work laws should be changed to say that a person cannot be fired "with or without cause." There should be a legitimate reason for someone to be fired from a job and the person should know exactly what that reason is.

This could be a very long post, but I'll leave it where it is since this is just the 2nd post on this thread (unless, of course someone else hit "post" before I have).

Don't want to join the Union fine but then the Union shouldn't be forced to take care of YOU when problems arise which is what I read is happening.

Yet you have no problem in States that require teachers for example to pay Union dues even if they do not want to be in the Union, right?

Why are teachers "required" to pay union dues? Can you give us some "credible" proof?

Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation