GOP introduces national right-to-work legislation

Retired. Owned my own company. I know how they think of their employees. Its frightening. I pray for you.
 
Directors and CEOs have Unions...they're called Banquets and BBQs where they plan on the next wave of firing Americans, bringing in the next wave of cheap labor and off-shoring.
 
Absolutely necessary and beneficial to the economy. Especially good if it includes public service unions! Expect the unions to fight this tooth and nail.

"At least 80 percent of Americans are opposed to forcing employees to pay dues as a condition of their employment, and our bill would protect workers by eliminating the forced-dues clauses in federal statute. Right-to-work states, like South Carolina, have seen first-hand that job creation and economic growth comes from expanded freedoms. We need to expand common-sense reforms, like those in the National Right to Work Act to protect American workers and create jobs," Wilson told the Washington Examiner.

More w/links @ GOP introduces national right-to-work legislation
Labor should have an actual, Right to Work, in right to work States.
 
Absolutely necessary and beneficial to the economy. Especially good if it includes public service unions! Expect the unions to fight this tooth and nail.

"At least 80 percent of Americans are opposed to forcing employees to pay dues as a condition of their employment, and our bill would protect workers by eliminating the forced-dues clauses in federal statute. Right-to-work states, like South Carolina, have seen first-hand that job creation and economic growth comes from expanded freedoms. We need to expand common-sense reforms, like those in the National Right to Work Act to protect American workers and create jobs," Wilson told the Washington Examiner.

More w/links @ GOP introduces national right-to-work legislation

Only an old sociopath like you would think this is good.
 
As a Union Steward I will say this.....

ANY worker in my department who does not pay dues WILL NOT be supported, protected or represented by me, or any other Union Officer.

I hope to hell you don't mean that because if you do you may be headed for a lot of trouble. Under the law you have a duty to represent both members and non-members the same when it comes to applying and enforcing the labor-management agreement. There are legal consequences for discriminating against the non-members. Over the span of about fifty years, I have been a union organizer and served in the capacity of shop steward and union officer. I also negotiated about a dozen union contracts both in the private sector and Federal government. Even before I become an attorney I also represented union members before federal agencies such as the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and before State unemployment compensation commissions. I know what I am talking about. The following is from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) official Wed site

Right to fair representation

“You have a right to be represented by your union fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.

Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. This duty applies to virtually every action that a union may take in dealing with an employer as your representative, including collective bargaining, handling grievances, and operating exclusive hiring halls. For example, a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. But the duty does not ordinarily apply to rights a worker can enforce independently - such as filing a workers' compensation claim - or to internal union affairs - such as the union's right to discipline members for violating its own rules.”

Right to fair representation | NLRB

Although you must treat non-members the same as members regarding terms and conditions of employment there are certain things that you can do for members only. For example you can offer reduced rates for per-paid legal plans for non-union matters. You can also restrict representation to member only in claims for unemployment compensation or workers' compensation and you can reserve the right to file a complaint with the EEOC on behalf of members only.

Note: in another post, someone talked about the how difficult it would be to have two labor agreements, one for members and one for non/members. This simply cannot happen. There is one and only one labor agreement between management and the entire work force. The unions cannot treat non-members differently and neither can management. It may seem unfair that unions must negotiate the same benefits for non-members as they do for members but that's the law.

Conclusion: You are required by law to treat non-members the same as members when it comes to applying and enforcing the labor-management agreement. However, regarding issues that can be raised in a forum other than the negotiated grievance procedure you can restrict representation to members only . If you doubt what I say I urge you to check with a labor attorney.
 
Last edited:
Most all american companies do not want to keep even their best workers. Fact. They are actually happy when good workers leave so they don't have to pay them. Fact.
There's nothing factual about any of that. I've owned a business for 32 years. And you? You're obviously a know nothing bottom rung guy.
 
The larger corporations own the political parties and they would prefer that workers had zero protection.
We need more union not less.
 
The larger corporations own the political parties and they would prefer that workers had zero protection.
We need more union not less.
No, we need less unions and more competition. Which can't happen until regulations and taxes get rolled back.
 
....Conclusion: You are required by law to treat non-members the same as members when it comes to applying and enforcing the labor-management agreement. However, regarding issues that can be raised in a forum other than the negotiated grievance procedure you can restrict representation to members only . If you doubt what I say I urge you to check with a labor attorney.

Belief or non-belief is irrelevant. There is no circumstance where I would represent a non-paying member. I don't believe there are any other Stewards or Union Leaders in the Union who would either. I'd lose my job over it, thank you very much.
 
No, we need less unions and more competition. Which can't happen until regulations and taxes get rolled back.

Anyone willing to work for a major corporations without a Union contract is an imbecile and must be ready to lose everything at a moments notice.
 
....Conclusion: You are required by law to treat non-members the same as members when it comes to applying and enforcing the labor-management agreement. However, regarding issues that can be raised in a forum other than the negotiated grievance procedure you can restrict representation to members only . If you doubt what I say I urge you to check with a labor attorney.

Belief or non-belief is irrelevant. There is no circumstance where I would represent a non-paying member. I don't believe there are any other Stewards or Union Leaders in the Union who would either. I'd lose my job over it, thank you very much.

It's not just about you. If management fires an employee without just cause and you refuse to file a grievance on his behalf because he is not a union member, what do you think will happen? I will tell you. He will sue your union and your union will lose.

Look, I don't give a royal fuck what happens to you personally if you disobey the law. You're an adult and you are willing to face the consequences of your actions and I find that admirable. However, when your ego-driven personal agenda puts your own union at risk I have a problem.

At any rate, I did my best to inform you what the law says and I am done with you and this thread.
 
Look, I don't give a royal fuck what happens to you personally if you disobey the law. You're an adult and you are willing to face the consequences of your actions and I find that admirable. However, when your ego-driven personal agenda puts your own union at risk I have a problem.

Any Union that would willingly protect a non-paying member is not one I want to be part of, or one I have any respect for. As I said, I'll lose my career over it. Which likely means losing my home, everything I have, and my life as well. It's just that simple.
 
The larger corporations own the political parties and they would prefer that workers had zero protection.
We need more union not less.
No, we need less unions and more competition. Which can't happen until regulations and taxes get rolled back.
There is no competition when one side has all the power. Unions even things up.
no unions drive up the cost of everything because they will never get rid of a job that is obsolete.
 
The larger corporations own the political parties and they would prefer that workers had zero protection.
We need more union not less.
No, we need less unions and more competition. Which can't happen until regulations and taxes get rolled back.
There is no competition when one side has all the power. Unions even things up.
no unions drive up the cost of everything because they will never get rid of a job that is obsolete.
I dont accept that opinion as valid. And in any case the opposite of that is a race to the bottom where everything is made by Chinese and Bangladeshi toddlers.
In effect the sick society that you and your ilk whine about 24/7.
You are conflicted sir.
 
No, we need less unions and more competition. Which can't happen until regulations and taxes get rolled back.

Anyone willing to work for a major corporations without a Union contract is an imbecile and must be ready to lose everything at a moments notice.
When the company shuts down or moves you can enjoy all the big money you don't get anymore and the contract that no longer means anything.
 

Forum List

Back
Top