Virginia "Right-to-Work" State

[crux]

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionrepor ... t-to-work/

Here is some good news. There are many states looking legislation which would give workers THE CHOICE of whether or NOT to pay Union Dues. The Free Choice.... A good little piece of the pie for your consideration.

...from the short piece...

Should unions have the right to compel people to pay them who would choose not to if given the choice? That is the whole issue in its entirety'.

'In that regard, it is worth noting that Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federal of Labor was a firm believer of freedom over compulsion. As he stated at his last AF of L convention:

“I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty – the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which, united, is invincible. . . . I want to say to you, men and women of the American labor movement, do not reject the cornerstone upon which labor’s structure has been builded – but base your all upon voluntary principles and illumine your every problem by consecrated devotion to that highest of all purposes – human well being in the fullest, widest, deepest sense.” [Emphasis added.]

crux

[Wise One]

Crux, well supported by an uplifting idealistic quotation. One wonders in what context the statement was made ... did it have anything at all to do with payment of union dues or did it refer to something quite different?

The counter argument is obvious:

• If paying air fares is voluntary, only saps will pay and the airline will fail for lack of revenue. Most people will gladly accept a free ride, but it won't last long.
• If paying taxes is voluntary, a majority of Congress having voted them, then only saps will pay and the country will fail for lack of revenue. Most people will gladly accept a free ride, but it won't last long.
• If paying union dues is voluntary, a majority of workers having voted to form a union, then only saps will pay and the union will fail. Most people will gladly accept a free ride, better wages and working conditions for nothing paid so that people can work in their interest, but it won't last long.

Which is exactly what union busters want. The closer the worker is kept to abject poverty and powerless servitude, the happier Republicans will always be.

[crux]

In Virginia, there are Unions. However, as condition of employment, the worker is neither REQUIRED to be a member of the Union, OR, pay dues. It is one's choice to Join, and paydues...not an obligation of EMPLOYMENT.

The "Airline Ticket" is hardly analogous, as is the tax question.

The article points out:
"...the vast majority of unionized workers never voted to become unionized (but went to work at jobs where unions were already in place)..." Being BOUND whether one wishes it or not...

"...Right-to-Work laws are a serious threat to union bosses...if the unions are poorly run, undemocratic or ineffective...workers are given a choice whether or not to pay for the unions’ services". A check and balance.

and...

"Right-to-Work laws do cause some unions to conduct constant internal “organizing campaigns” to recruit the non-paying workers..." NOT a bad thing, if a Union can sell itself based on MERIT...


Do you support COMPULSORY UNION MEMBERSHIP?

crux

[Wise One]

You are simply wrong.

Unions are formed by majority vote of workers in the company. Once a majority has spoken, the only way to avoid the "free ride" of workers who accept all the benefits but none of the costs of collective bargaining, is to require all workers in that company to abide by majority vote and pay their dues.

The "right to work" exclusion in federal labor law, enabling states to opt out of this reasonable democratic provision, is a victory over fairness by union busters.

If workers find union performance to be poor or dues too high, they can always vote the union out.



PS. Your argument that new present day workers never voted for the union is as ridiculous as saying "I don't have to obey most laws, because they were enacted by old Congresses and Presidents I never had a chance to vote for!"

[Sam]

Having had to pay union dues even though I didn't want to really galled me. I found that the union when they had strikes did pretty terrible things to others whether they warranted it or not. If a person crossed their picket lines, which I feel should be their choice, they had their car vandalized and were threatened with bodily harm. If there are going to be unions in the workplace, then workers should have a closed vote so the workers can vote freely on these unions. Through the years I have had plenty experiences with unions and all those experiences, Pal, were bad.

[fangz1956]

My father belonged to a union.......and so did most of my uncles. I have friends who are still union members. I've never seen any of what Sam describes in all of life. The worst has come about for all workers when union-busting began hitting its peak. Jobs have been essentially cut.........fewer people doing more work for less pay and reduced benefits. Granted, some unions got way out of hand at points along the way.....but not all of them are bad apples.

Sure, you have a right to work. But, if you opt not to join the union (if one is available), then you shouldn't expect the gravy with your potatoes.



And crux........unless you have first-hand, personal experience with labor unions, put a sock in it already.

[crux]

...unless you have first-hand, personal experience with labor unions, put a sock in it already.

This is really funny. This kind of thinking doesn't elevate you. Should those who have no tongue not comment on free speech issues, or those who have never fired or own a gun just put a sock in it already?

Nobody has to have been a teacher in New York State to have on opinion on whether the State should close "rubber rooms" for accused child molesters...

It takes no special certification to understand the requirement to utilize Union Labor for Federally subsidized road building projects , drives up the cost of said projects by @20%.

Any taxpayer might be concerned about Unfunded State Debt Obligations say, to service huge benefit packages to Public Sector UNION employees... One could go on and on and on...

"The current process established by federal law requires at least 30% of employees to sign cards for the union, then wait 45 to 90 days for a federal official to conduct a secret ballot election in which a simple majority of the employees must vote for the union in order to obligate the employer to bargain..."

Do you support COMPULSORY UNION MEMBERSHIP?

...I ask you too 1956...

crux

[Sam]

Those who have had no problems with unions - thats nice. But I had some really bad ones and to this day can't stand unions. I am a peaceful man and don't take with violence and intimidation and that is what the CWA union has done. I got to tell you Gal, I experienced it and saw it. Your family is lucky to have had no problems. I got numerous letters threatening me with bodily harm just to name a few because I crossed the picket line. I had to work and felt it my obligation. They also took money out of everyone's pay check whether they belonged to the union or not. I thought that was too much. Golly I get my blood boiling just thinking about those stupid people. I reckon unions were needed at a point in time, but I was appauled at this union.

Just wondering now Gal, do I got to put a sock in it too?

[Wise One]

Do you support COMPULSORY UNION MEMBERSHIP?

Very cute. This is one of your red herrings, a kind of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

No, just as nobody supports the Fairness Doctrine (another of your red herrings) nobody supports "compulsory union membership" in the usual meaning of that term. Nobody is telling workers, in a vacuum of no choice by workers at that site, that they must become union members.

The normal and fair situation is that the workers themselves decide whether workers at a work site will form a union. If a majority vote "yes" then the union is formed and all workers at the site abide by that majority vote, sharing in both the benefits and costs of collective bargaining. Democratic choice is a prerequisite for unionization, workers as a group making that choice for themselves. Workers retain a right to reverse that choice and to vote out the union, all workers respecting that choice also.

A little less than half the states are "right-to-work" states, adopting a union-crippling rule that workers can ignore the majority vote of their fellow workers.

[crux]

First you said, "...nobody supports the Fairness Doctrine..." THIS is complete and TOTAL B*** S***.

As has been pointed out, in a NON "right to work" state, the condition of employment might DICTATE your MANDATORY UNION MEMBERSHIP and the OBLIGATORY PAYMENT of dues. Now ,if you think this is FAIR, AND, you DO NOT support COMPULSORY union membership, does this mean you DO or DO NOT beat your wife?

...seriously...

A Union may or may not form. Once formed, a worker can decide to JOIN the union and pay dues, or not, Like in Virginia. We have unions. Many support them or choose to be members...others do not.

From the article: Obviously, to union bosses, unions feel entitled to collect dues from 100% of the represented employees since the union is, as the collective bargaining agent, required to represent the non-dues paying worker as well as the dues-paying member.

Lastly, Right-to-Work laws do cause some unions to conduct constant internal “organizing campaigns” to recruit the non-paying workers to become members and to pay dues. Arguably, this is a financial strain on those unions who do not have good relations with the represented workers".

IF a Union can not stay relevant and supported over time by the workers, it should GO AWAY. Unions should be held accountable by THE VOLUNTARY support of their membership, continually. They can certainly succeed or fail by their merits, NOT by MANDATORY membership and OBLIGATORY dues.

[Sam]

Some of this sounds like joining a union is a choice. It is not. I can tell you Pal, this damn union took dues out of my pay even though I didn't want to belong to the union. As a result I joined but against my better judgement. I feel that this was compulsary. This union was crap to my way of thinking. The kept people in jobs where they should have been fired. They intimidated those who acted against their edicts. They were very powerful and to my way of thinking ran the job sites where I worked. Just my experience and it wern't pretty

[Wise One]

First you said, "...nobody supports the Fairness Doctrine..." THIS is complete and TOTAL B*** S***.

So you keep saying, but not a soul in Congress or at the FCC, of either party, has taken a concrete step toward legislation or regulation to that effect. And so, my distinguished friend, I believe you are the keeper of the bullshit.

IF a Union can not stay relevant and supported over time by the workers, it should GO AWAY.

I cannot disagree with this statement, but workers already have power to vote out the union and they sometimes do. Most bellyaching and whining for "right to work" comes from Republicans, senior management concerned mainly with their obscene bonuses and stock options, and a few worker-leeches who happily reap benefits but selfishly withhold dues to support their collective bargaining representatives.

[Sam]

Most bellyaching and whining for "right to work" comes from Republicans, senior management concerned mainly with their obscene bonuses and stock options, and a few worker-leeches who happily reap benefits but selfishly withhold dues to support their collective bargaining representatives.

Well Pal, this is one man who bellyached and complained about the union at my former work place. They kept asking for raises all the time, when I felt we were paid fairly in accordance with other comparable jobs. As a result there were massive lay offs and luckly I wasn't caught. They took my money which amounted to over $80 a month well over 15 years ago and I got nothing. They threatened me and others who didn't agree with them and damaged my my car extensively. I would like to think we could disagree without the violence but that was all these union people knew. At one time I was backed into a corner by several thugs and received a black eye among other things. I did nothing wrong, except perhaps they didn't like my race. Was I a leech, I don't think so. I firmly believe unions are pricing themselves out of work. One of many reasons businesses go overseas.

[crux]

Interesting article here: http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/01/o ... et-ballot/

I love how the Progs never dealt with the chart by the NLRB from the first post, which shows some very interesting comparisons between RIGHT and NON right to work states...

The act is, this Nation could take the Progs up un say, increasing the minimum wage to 10$/hour, institute a "living wage" policy RIGHT NOW, Unionize EVERYONE...give the Socialists the whole ball of wax.
It would solve NOTHING. Taxes get passed on to the consumer. The impacts of wage and benefit increases get passed onto the consumer, the worker, the taxpayer. Democrats in their special interest for Unions simply ask the 92% of NON union workforce to subsidize the perks of Union members, and FANTASIZE this is JUST, or NOBLE. What crap. You can not expect more from State-ists...

crux

[Wise One]

The referenced article is useful information. The rest of your posting is shrill diatribe containing only hysterical belief and no information.

Now let's look at some real

... comparisons between RIGHT and NON right to work states ...

Here's something that I extracted from available data:

• Median 2009 state per capita income for "right to work" states = $37,904
• Median 2009 state per capita income for all other states = $41, 174

So everybody is better off where RTW has not been imposed. The effective difference is actually greater, because the non RTW states tend to have larger populations than the southern and western states dominated by Republicans.

References:

• Right to Work States
• Per Capita Personal Income by State

[crux]

Here's something that I extracted from available data:

NUMBERS floating in the total vacuum of logic... For anyone interested in the COMPARISONS of RTW vs. NON RTW states

Liberty is preferable to progressive utopia...

[Wise One]

Op-Ed Contributor
Public or Private, It’s Work
By GARRET KEIZER
Published in NYT June 24, 2011

Sutton, Vt.

AS New Jersey throws its weight behind Wisconsin and Ohio in rolling back the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees, we are once again going to hear the argument that public sector unions ought not to be confused with their private sector counterparts. They’re two different animals entirely.

Private sector workers, so the argument goes, have historically organized to win better working conditions and a bigger piece of the pie from profit-making entities like railroads and coal mines. But public sector employees work for “us,” the ultimate nonprofit, and therefore are not entitled to the same protections.

This is a fond notion at best. Yes, public school teachers were never gunned down by Pinkerton guards; municipal firefighters were never housed in company-owned shanties by the side of the tracks. But none of this cancels their rights as organized workers. No ancestor of mine voted to ratify the Constitution, either, but I have the same claim on the Bill of Rights as any Daughter of the American Revolution. Collective bargaining is an inheritance and we are all named in the will.

The two-labors fallacy rests on an even shakier proposition: that profits exist only where there is an accountant to tally them. This is economics reduced to the code of a shoplifter — whatever the security guard doesn’t see the store won’t miss. If my wife and I have young children but are still able to enjoy the double-income advantages of a childless couple, isn’t that partly because our children are being watched at school? If I needn’t invest some of my household’s savings in elaborate surveillance systems, isn’t that partly because I have a patrol car circling the block? The so-called “public sector” is a profit-making entity; it profits me.

Denying this profitability has an obvious appeal to conservatives. It allows a union-busting agenda to hide behind nice distinctions. “We’re not anti-union, we’re just against certain kinds of unions.” But the denial isn’t exclusive to conservatives; in fact, it informs the delusional innocence of many liberals. I mean the idea that exploitation is the exclusive province of oil tycoons and other wicked types. If you own a yoga center or direct an M.F.A. program, you can’t possibly be implicated in the more scandalous aspects of capitalism — just as you can’t possibly be to blame for racism if you’ve never grown cotton or owned a slave.

The fact is that our entire economic system rests on the principle of paying someone less than his or her labor is worth. The principle applies in the public sector no less than the private. The purpose of most labor unions has never been to eliminate the profit margin (the tragedy of the American labor movement) but rather to keep it within reasonable bounds.

But what about those school superintendents and police chiefs with their fabulous pensions, with salaries and benefits far beyond the average worker’s dreams?

Tell me about it. This past school year, I worked as a public high school teacher in northeastern Vermont. At 58 years of age, with a master’s degree and 16 years of teaching experience, I earned less than $50,000. By the standards of the Ohio school superintendent or the Wisconsin police chief, my pension can only be described as pitiful, though the dairy farmer who lives down the road from me would be happy to have it.

He should have it, at the least, and he could. If fiscal conservatives truly want to “bring salaries into line” they should commit to a model similar to the one proposed by George Orwell 70 years ago, with the nation’s highest income exceeding the lowest by no more than a factor of 10. They should establish that model in the public sector and enforce it with equal rigor and truly progressive taxation in the private.

Right now C.E.O.’s of multinational corporations earn salaries as much as a thousand times those of their lowest-paid employees. In such a context complaining about “lavish” public sector salaries is like shushing the foul language of children playing near the set of a snuff film. Whom are we kidding? More to the point, who’s getting snuffed?

Garret Keizer is the author, most recently, of “The Unwanted Sound of Everything We Want: A Book About Noise.”

[crux]

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionrepor ... vey-finds/

"When it comes to America’s Top States for Business 2011, when it comes to a quality workforce, 18 out of the top 20 states are Right-to-Work states. Moreover, all 22 Right-to-Work states are in the top 25 states for having the best workforces."