right to work: anyone notice a difference?

[rockhopper46038]

So then instead of right to work, why aren't conservatives pushing for a revocation of that government protection of unions? fewer laws rather than more.

They definitely should be. It is the better solution.

 

[Jludo]

There is something to what you say, with some caveats. The agreement between the employer and the union must be truly voluntary. Currently employers do not have the right to simply say "no" to a union. That would have to change. Secondly, union dues would have to be voluntary. Equating mandatory dues payments with an employer requirement that all employees wear steel toed boots is incorrect.

If an employer can't simply say 'no' to a union, why isn't that law the one everyone is going after?
If a union and employer decide their employees will have to pay the union dues, what's wrong with that?

 

[rockhopper46038]

If an employer can't simply say 'no' to a union, why isn't that law the one everyone is going after?
If a union and employer decide their employees will have to pay the union dues, what's wrong with that?

That would be a "kickback", which is illegal if perpetrated by any entity other than a union (or the government, these days).

 

[Jludo]

That would be a "kickback", which is illegal if perpetrated by any entity other than a union (or the government, these days).

Kickbacks aren't illegal.
There are federal bribery laws which make kickbacks illegal for government officials/funds/contractors. But there is nothing inherently illegal about kickacks in the private sector.

 

[RockofStrength]

If this were a situation where there was no government and then suddenly the government rolled in to put a stop to this horrible thing...nah. Not going with that. But government and unions have been in bed as long as governments and corporations, and have plenty of laws designed to grant them additional power and authority that they should not. Therefore a law to, in effect, limit the legal authority of a union to compel workers to join is a balancer against the power already granted legally.

As for advocating a repeal of those laws...really? That is not going to happen, ever. No politician is going to sign his name on a "union/labor killing bill that will destroy millions of jobs across the nation". It's one thing for the unions to lose a state battle: the torrents of money (and media bias) that would come flooding out against those evil anti-union politicians on a federal level would be legendary. A band-aid fix like this is the best we can hope for, unfortunately.

 

[88GT]

No, the union should be able to enter into a contract with the employer effective only for those employees represented by the union. An extension of that is that the employer allows the union to set standards for it's employees. Unions can't force anyone to do anything they don't want. They do, however get to dictate the terms at which an employee works for the employer the union is in contract with.
The union can't come to your house and force you to join or force you to work with them. However if the union has a contract with a company you work for or want to work for and that contract says any employee must be part of the union, then it's your own prerogative whether or not you want to be employed under the given conditions.

Anyone entering into employment is under the conditions set forth by their employer and by extension the union their employer is in a contract with.

It's basic free market stuff. They can't coerce you to do something you don't want to do. At the same time you can't use the government to dictate terms of a private employment contract.

FIFY
You have misrepresented the nature of the relationship between union and employer. The employer does not "allow the union to set the standards for the employees." The employees join forces with common demands and use a representative to negotiate with the employer to achieve those demands. Today that collective (the joined employees) has morphed into the more formal entity of a union. But there need be no union for collective bargaining to take place either. The union isn't (or shouldn't be, but we all know how corruptive power-brokering can be) a separate entity from the employees. The union doesn't TELL the employees what their employment terms are going to be. What you are advocating is a third party that gets to dictate to both employer and employee what terms of employment will be.

You are also misrepresenting the contract concept of employment. The union doesn't have a contract with the employer. Only employees have a contract with the employer. The union merely acts as a representative to see to it that the contract includes terms the employees want. The ONLY people who should be determining the terms of the contract are the employees and the employer. If the employees want to collectivize for that purpose, that's fine. But the contract is still between the employees and the employer. For those employees that don't want to be a part of that collective agreement, they should be free to seek their own terms with the employer independent of the collective agreement forged with the other employees.

If an employer can't simply say 'no' to a union, why isn't that law the one everyone is going after?
If a union and employer decide their employees will have to pay the union dues, what's wrong with that?

It sounds like you think the employer conditions employment on the employee joining the union. I suppose that would be possible in a free market situation. But that isn't what is happening in cases where people are supporting RTW. It is the UNION that is demanding the employees join the union as a condition of employment. Imagine me telling you that you'd have to buy a particular gun as condition of membership on INGO. INGO doesn't care what you buy, but I wouldn't let you post here without that firearm in your possession.

 

[Jludo]

Imagine me telling you that you'd have to buy a particular gun as condition of membership on INGO. INGO doesn't care what you buy, but I wouldn't let you post here without that firearm in your possession.

Right, that's absurd, now imagine if you and INGO entered into a contract in which INGO gave you permission to dictate who could post. Still absurd but legally binding in a free society.

 

[CathyInBlue]

No, the union should be able to enter into a contract with the employer. An extension of that is that the employer allows the union to set standards for it's employees. Unions can't force anyone to do anything they don't want. They do, however get to dictate the terms at which an employee works for the employer the union is in contract with.
The union can't come to your house and force you to join or force you to work with them.

And herein lies the crux of the issue. There is an important caveat the above highlighted sentence fails to take into consideration. Does the union have the authority to use contract law to coerce the employer with respect to how the employer can relate to employees who are not members of the union? Do I have the right to contract with your best friend wherein unless you pay me a monthly stipend, your best friend can't talk to you anymore? Replace me with a union, your friend with an employer, and you with a prospective employee, and that's what RTW prevents.

Thanks to RTW, unions have no rights/powers/authorities in the State of Indiana to contract with employers such that those contracts constrain the relationships the employers may have with third parties, not parties to the union's labour contract with any employer, from being bound and forced to join and contribute financially to the union. That is not government overreach. That is prevention of collective overreach.

However if the union has a contract with a company you work for or want to work for and that contract says any employee must be part of the union, then it's your own prerogative whether or not you want to be employed under the given conditions.

Not anymore. Not in Indiana. This is the same principle as the non-disrimination laws in places of public accommodation. It's better that the hospitality industry lose powers it formerly had to keep "the darkies" out, if it prevents black people from sleeping in the streets for lack of any place willing to accommodate them. It is better that unions lose powers they formerly held to keep an iron grip on entire businesses and entire industries to prop up their membership and keep their coffers full, if it means that people who formerly couldn't get hired into an industry because the union was anathema to that prospective employee's politics can now get hired into a company/industry and enjoy gainful employment where formerly they were locked out by union exclusivity contracts.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Right, that's absurd, now imagine if you and INGO entered into a contract in which INGO gave you permission to dictate who could post. Still absurd but legally binding in a free society.

You missed her point, you become a member with INGO, but she has created a union that will not let you post without joining said union, INGO has no say in it because the law backs the union and not INGO

 

[Jludo]

I admit I don't know a lot about state to state union protection.
However I do know principled conservatives should be for the revoking of union protecting laws, not the passing of employee protection laws.
It just seems to me that one of the few things conservatives hate more than government intervention is the unions and that they are more than willing to use government intervention when it suits them.

 

[Jludo]

You missed her point, you become a member with INGO, but she has created a union that will not let you post without joining said union, INGO has no say in it because the law backs the union and not INGO

Like I said, show me this law that gives the union the power to overrule the wishes of both the employee and the employer. If it exists, fight for the revoking of that law, not to throw an extra employee protection law on top of it all.

 

[Jludo]

Do I have the right to contract with your best friend wherein unless you pay me a monthly stipend, your best friend can't talk to you anymore? Replace me with a union, your friend with an employer, and you with a prospective employee, and that's what RTW prevents.

Ha yes, you absolutely do. If my best friend agrees to a contract with you in which I have to pay you in order to continue talking to him, then so be it. That's within his and yours power to do so and I'm SOL looking for a new friend who isn't a prick.

 

[phil1640]

We have 3 people opt-out. All 3 have filed grievance's . I should not have to pay their way! If you do not want to be in the Union get a job at nonunion shop.

 

[Jarhead77]

Yep..fewer paid union "protesters" down town these days. Nice and quiet.

 

[Scout]

I never understood the conservative case for right to work. Employees and unions should be free to enter into any contract they want, right? Just like any other job, the employee does not have a right to a job on their terms.
Always seemed like government intervening in places it shouldn't.

I've never understood it either. If someone doesn't want to join a union, no one is forcing them too. I just see it as a condition of employment. "Want to work here? Have to join the union."

 

[Bunnykid68]

I've never understood it either. If someone doesn't want to join a union, no one is forcing them too. I just see it as a condition of employment. "Want to work here? Have to join the union."

But it is not a decision the employer made

 

[Scout]

We have 3 people opt-out. All 3 have filed grievance's . I should not have to pay their way! If you do not want to be in the Union get a job at nonunion shop.

The messed up part of it is, Indiana has a law that says even if you opt out of the union, the union still has to represent you.


Where I work is union, and there have been a few people opt out.

 

[Scout]

But it is not a decision the employer made

Right, it's a decision the employee made. It's like saying "I want to work at Hooters, but I don't want to wear the short shorts."

 

[Bunnykid68]

Right, it's a decision the employee made. It's like saying "I want to work at Hooters, but I don't want to wear the short shorts."

Not even close

 

[Jludo]

But it is not a decision the employer made

I still want to see where the law says unions get to dictate terms to employers