W. Virginia becomes #26 right to work state

[Si modo]

One of the fundamental parts of capitalism is the fact that there is a conflict between management and employee. The two operate better when at odds. Management won this battle. But the war will continue.

Actually, it's a win for the worker.

 

[initforme]

No, it really isn't. Its part of a movement to get rid of unions. Once they ate gone, watch the attack to weaken labor laws. One example, overtime laws. Companies don't want to pay workers time and a half. Makes zero sense. Less wages for workers. Those companies are exploitive and workers would be wise to walk away to a better job....no notice.

 

[Si modo]

No, it really isn't. Its part of a movement to get rid of unions. Once they ate gone, watch the attack to weaken labor laws. One example, overtime laws. Companies don't want to pay workers time and a half. Makes zero sense. Less wages for workers. Those companies are exploitive and workers would be wise to walk away to a better job....no notice.

Right to Work doesn't change ANY LABOR LAW - it simply makes it illegal to force someone to join a union in order to gain employment.

It's a very simple law. Even some intellectually challenged persons may grasp it - it's not long, either

And, it gives the worker a choice. Imagine that..choice for an individual.

 

[initforme]

Then those that don't join the union should negotiate their own pay and benefits. But labor laws will be under attack. Corporate scum lobbyists will ensure it.

 

[Si modo]

Then those that don't join the union should negotiate their own pay and benefits. ....

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Lakhota]

RTW is simply another union-busting tactic by union haters. Before long all workers will once again be forced to buy all their stuff at the company store.

 

[Si modo]

Right to Work does nothing to the union except make it illegal for them to force someone to join so that someone can make a living.














Moron.

 

[Lakhota]

RTW simply makes it legal to hire scabs who get a free ride without paying union dues.

 

[Si modo]

RTW simply makes it legal to hire scabs who get a free ride without paying union dues.

Right to Work gives a worker a right to work (imagine that) without being compelled to join an organization and pay dues.





















Moron.

 

[Muhammed]

There are also 26 states full of of dupes of the greedy idiot rich...Actually, this may be the beginning of the end of the Reaganist anti-union movement. See Bernie and Hillary.

Ronald Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild for several years.

The "Reaganist anti-union movement"?

 

[Lakhota]

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.

 

[francoHFW]

There are also 26 states full of of dupes of the greedy idiot rich...Actually, this may be the beginning of the end of the Reaganist anti-union movement. See Bernie and Hillary.

Ronald Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild for several years.

The "Reaganist anti-union movement"?

He was a Democrat then duh...

 

[Wilbur Right]

Unions had a place and a time and we have all ultimately benefited from them, but they got greedy and overplayed their hand too many times. Now the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction.

Yea thats the problem. 7% of the workforce belongs to private sector unions.

And working men and womens wages have been declining since the decline of the unions.

Seems like the pendelum has swung the anti union way long enough.

Unless you all are just in support of a declining standard of living for working men and women.

Which is what I believe. You all actively support a declining standard of living for the middle and lower class. Why???

 

[Wilbur Right]

Right to Work does nothing to the union except make it illegal for them to force someone to join so that someone can make a living.

Bullshit. It puts the union in the position of working to improve wages and working conditions for an employee who gets to benefit from the negotiation but doesnt have to pay for the benefit


Which is EXACtLY the situation that makes you right wing wack jobs fucking crazy; people getting benefits without paying for them.


Yet here in an effort to bust the unions, you are all for freeloading. Strange.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Sounds great, eh? One man's support requirement is another man's political extortion. Done and done.

Perhaps if the unions had concentrated solely on workplace matters and stayed out of Democratic Party politics, they wouldn't be fumbling.

 

[bodecea]

Unions had a place and a time and we have all ultimately benefited from them, but they got greedy and overplayed their hand too many times. Now the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction.

The 2nd Amendment had a place and time and we ultimately benefited from it, but its supporters got greedy and overplayed their hands too many times.

See how silly you sound?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Sounds great, eh? One man's support requirement is another man's political extortion. Done and done.

Perhaps if the unions had concentrated solely on workplace matters and stayed out of Democratic Party politics, they wouldn't be fumbling.

Now we see the true reason.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Unions had a place and a time and we have all ultimately benefited from them, but they got greedy and overplayed their hand too many times. Now the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction.

The 2nd Amendment had a place and time and we ultimately benefited from it, but its supporters got greedy and overplayed their hands too many times.

Apples and screwdrivers. There is no constitutional right to union representation, neither a constitutional right to extort fees from workers for unsolicited activities ostensibly on their behalf nor to support a sympathetic political party opposed by the worker.

See how silly you sound?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Sounds great, eh? One man's support requirement is another man's political extortion. Done and done.

Perhaps if the unions had concentrated solely on workplace matters and stayed out of Democratic Party politics, they wouldn't be fumbling.

Now we see the true reason.

That's a good part of it, especially since the Democrats have gone completely bugfuck socialist and would ditch the Constitution if they could..

 

[Wilbur Right]

Perhaps if the unions had concentrated solely on workplace matters and stayed out of Democratic Party politics, they wouldn't be fumbling.

A company CEO can use company assets to promote whatever political agenda he or she supports.

And you support that.

But the unions involving themselves in politics to support their agenda is bad eh?

Why is that?