I work in a UAW controlled factory. It all comes down to money. Since we won't be FORCED to pay dues, it will affect their wallet. They fear they may actually have to do their job and represent us.
No one is keeping you from applying for the non-union job.
Just tell why you want it or not? Make the reasons legitimate, Not what the Indiana afl/cio has to say or the National right to work committee. Look at the other 22 states that have it. And also, look at the 28 that do not. The quality of life (in financial terms)in those 28 states is much better. You tube it. there are economic professors and labor professors who are far more educated on the topic than we are, you know what they say?? It doesn't work. Come on people take politics out for just a moment and think of your friends, family, neighbors, etc..
...RTW is for our elected officials to debate, as they are paid to do.
I haven't even read RTW, so I won't comment on the bill.
I work in a UAW controlled factory. It all comes down to money. Since we won't be FORCED to pay dues, it will affect their wallet. They fear they may actually have to do their job and represent us.
I work in Illinois as a union electrician, but I could possibly transfer to Indiana. My biggest gripe, personally, with this bill is if I had transferred and put on a book(list) for employment, this is how some locals work, and a big job got called in, thw possibility of my position being taken by a non union electrician is quite possible. I dont like that. I don't know if this is really gonna affect the big from not hiring union contractors, but maybe. I hope the best for ALL, but if my brothers are stuck sitting at home because of jobs being taken by non union, that will start to bother me. Thats my only gripe. Then maybe union workers will be FORCED, since people like to use that word here, to leave the union. The past 3 years has been horrible for any trade to find work in the whole country union or not. I hope all you union bashers are right and that the economy will flourish because of this bill, but I doubt it will change much.
Refer to the Ball State UNBIASED study of Right to Work States vs non. Conclusion: NO difference directly related to having or not having Right to Work Law. Both sides are lying. Many other factors determine economic outcome. The largest factor is whether there is a pro-business climate. That means government does not overtax, over-regulate, and gets out of the way of business. Both Union and non-Union shops benefit in that environment.
Indiana passage of the current Bill will make no difference. If wages go down or up it is because the market dictates the value of goods or services.
Is it that difficult to understand why companies move jobs to Mexico or China? WE the Consumer - All of Us - want low prices on goods and services.
Fed and State Government see corporations as cash cows to tax and tax. Other parts of government regulate every aspect of business operations. This drives the cost of goods and services up. We the Consumer buy the cheaper alternatives from sources not burdened by high taxes and over-regulation. More companies move manufacturing overseas. We the Consumer are happy, until those jobs moved overseas become our jobs that go away.
This is not exclusively a Union vs non-Union issue. It is a Buy American issue. How about we all pledge to buy American as much as possible?
Exactly. I can't come up with any good reason why either side is getting fired up over RTW other than perception.
The sadist in me kind of likes seeing how fired up all the union people are getting though.
How is that more possible with RTW than it is currently? RTW doesn't affect in any way who is allowed to work on jobs, just whether a union can make employees join.My biggest gripe, personally, with this bill is if I had transferred and put on a book(list) for employment, this is how some locals work, and a big job got called in, thw possibility of my position being taken by a non union electrician is quite possible. I dont like that.
Agreed.I understand that this Bill has a very limited scope and its effects will probably be small at first.
The only way this bill will weaken unions is if unions aren't doing their job anyway. In other words, it will damage only unions that are bad for the workers. Good unions will still draw members. How is that a bad thing?But it is the idea of it that bothers me . I believe the only motive behind it is to weaken the unions for political reasons . The unions really dont have much leverage anymore.
Listening to Garrison right now and the whole idea of restrictive re-employment has been brought up. Retire before 60 and get another full time job, you lose your pension? Is that true or just talk radio crap?
Your talents and knowledge werent given to you by anyone, you earned them. You could take those and work for yourself and probably make more money
Would you deny another an equal chance to gain employment just because they aren't "your brother"? Who's to say that their talents and knowledge aren't superior or even equal?
A business deserves to chance to get the best value in labor for their money. A worker deserves the chance get the best pay for the value he/she provides to an employer. This should not be contingent on who pays what to who. It should rely on demonstrable experience and knowledge. Why is this an alien concept for the Unions in general?
That depends on the company that is holding your pension.
Also has nothing to do with RTW.
Unions have alot of pride in their workers. We are usually highly trained, that is why business hires union. I'm not saying a scab can't perform equally, but USUALLY with union labor, it is an implied standard.
Exactly. I can't come up with any good reason why either side is getting fired up over RTW other than perception.
The sadist in me kind of likes seeing how fired up all the union people are getting though.