• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

I'm retired, but I did work in education for over 30 years and I constantly heard from teachers and other unionized workers who frequently complained about union officials lavish spending, their support for fellow teachers and others who were incompetent and a disgrace to their profession, and union support, with member dues, of political parties that they did not support and/or political issues/activities outside of their own jurisdiction and sometimes outside of their own country.

If you agree that the average voter is sick and tired of the corruption and cronyism in political parties, the average unionized worker is equally sick and tired of the same thing in union leadership.

Then do something about union corruption, not union. The thing is, if you try doing it alone, you won't get anywhere. If you surround yourself with equally disgruntled workers and go after them (form a union with a common goal), it may just be possible to get that changed.
See how that works?
 
i tend to doubt that these union busting bills will be ultimately be thrown out in court. ****, the whole country would currently be "right to work" :)roll:) had Scalia not passed away unexpectedly. it sucks, but that's how i see it. workers are going to have to not only unionize, but also start voting in their own best interest. our idiotic two party teamsport system makes that damned difficult, though.

We should unionize to do away with the two party system for sure.
 
Then do something about union corruption, not union. The thing is, if you try doing it alone, you won't get anywhere. If you surround yourself with equally disgruntled workers and go after them (form a union with a common goal), it may just be possible to get that changed.
See how that works?

Doesn't work - that's a rather naïve view of how it works. Sounds more like a screen play for a Hollywood movie than real life dynamics in the real world. The majority of unionized workers are of the same mindset, so they're not opposed to what's going on. But there are large numbers of unionized membership who aren't happy and their only option is to give up their livelihood to get out of slavish adherence to union oversight. Right to Work legislation allows them to keep their jobs and give their union bosses the finger. That's a good thing, in my view.
 
To me, that sounds suspiciously like some guy coming into a mom and pop store and telling pop that, since the guy is out on the street and stopping thugs from coming in and robbing the store, pop owes the guy money...whether pop asked the guy for this "protection" or not.

There's a word for that, isn't there??? Extortion??


The solution is that the union negotiates salaries and benefits for its members...not for any other employee who does not agree to become a member. Then the union wouldn't be engaging in extortion.

Pure nonesense, first of all Unions are voted in by the employees initially and by majority all the while the company that wants to pay peanuts threatens and coerces everyone they can not to vote for the union because then the employees must be paid a fair wage <gasp> so you little scenario is nonesense.

Far right conservative Koch bros babies like Scott Walker have one goal to pay employees as little as possible to enable them to take more. For Scott Walker it was koch pac donations to fund his presidential aspirations.

Right to work is CODE for RIGHT TO WORK FOR NOTHING
 
Pure nonesense, first of all Unions are voted in by the employees initially and by majority all the while the company that wants to pay peanuts threatens and coerces everyone they can not to vote for the union because then the employees must be paid a fair wage <gasp> so you little scenario is nonesense.

Far right conservative Koch bros babies like Scott Walker have one goal to pay employees as little as possible to enable them to take more. For Scott Walker it was koch pac donations to fund his presidential aspirations.

Right to work is CODE for RIGHT TO WORK FOR NOTHING

Blah, blah, blah...

All the spin on why unions are a good thing do nothing to justify making everyone pay the union even if they don't want to become a member.

If you had a case, then you would also be justified in making pop pay for the "protection" he didn't ask for...all because other shops on the street pay for that protection, too. I mean, THAT'S for his own good, as well...right?

Face it, lpast, you are trying to justify extortion. Why do you support such a thing?
 
That is fine, but if they opt out (and many do), they should work at different pay and benefits than those who are union. Goes both ways.

Maybe.

If an employee opts out of the union, they should make their own deal with the employer. Now...that non-union employee might agree to get paid less than the union member or the employer might agree to pay that non-union employee more than the union member...or, they both might agree on the very same pay and benefits that a union member gets. That's between them and the union has nothing to say about it.
 
That's a pretty harsh and revisionist view of the history of unionization. Now I'll admit that like many movements to do social good, after they succeed they can become warped and twisted by power politics. Unions are no exception.

Still, their development came from the very real abuses of robber baron businessmen who thought only of the bottom line and considered workers easily replaceable parts in their money making machines. That mentality has not changed, it has become worse with the evolution of impersonal corporations.

Union value and importance has lessened in the eyes of average citizens for two reasons.

1. It is no longer a sellers market. Despite all this constant hype we hear about employment improvement, that's all it is...hype! There are too many people and too few jobs. People don't want another hurdle like unions making it tougher to get a job.

2. Unions are fairly corrupt and inflexible. Once established they protect mediocracy. Good workers are forbidden to excel for fear they will make median and poor workers look bad. Seniority rather than capability is the standard for promotions. And the leaders make sure they take good care of themselves and their friends through cronyism.

Still, unions remain important because of the power of collective bargaining. Bargaining as a group, rather than on a individual basis gives employees more power. Unless you are a golden boy with skills unmatched, then an employer has all the power when it comes to negotiations. If we could get honest unions who truly serve employees while not damaging the business, then things would be just fine.

They rose out of the sweat shop era when there were no real labor laws protecting employees. However now there are strong and fair labor laws. However at this point the labor unions are doing more harm then good. Collective bargaining is one thing, however fascist control over a companies labor force is another. No employee should be forced to join a labor union in order to work at a specific company. That is an insult to democracy.
 
The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

That is 100% intellectually dishonest. If joining a labor union is a requirement for working at any specific company it is forcing a prospective employee to join a labor union.


Really I know of no one at union shops who complains about dues except for extreme right wing republicans.or their useful idiot.

You are making that up as you go along.
 
Heres how that works if you work in a union shop and refuse to pay dues under right to work, the union still negotiates salaries and benefits for you and will represent you in oasha cases disciplinary is iffy whether they are forced to defend you or not for free whether you contribute dues or not.

Under agency shop bills if you refuse to pay dues you still are required by law to pay 85% of the dues for the services rendered.

It is still the act of forcing employees to join and pay dues to an organization they want nothing to do with?
 
It is still the act of forcing employees to join and pay dues to an organization they want nothing to do with?

They could get a job where there isn't a union.

Problem solved.
 
Working in a job without being forced to have any representation may seem desirable at first. When you look deeper, you may notice that people are still lining up for union jobs, one that protects workers rights and safety and pays a decent wage.

There is nothing desirable about being forced to join a union....at first or otherwise.
 
I have heard workers complain about working conditions and inadequate pay more often.

If I do not like what I am being paid and by one employer, if I think I deserve a raise, I ask for it, or if need be, I move on to another. That's worked me my entire career and I am within a few years of retirement. I have never joined a labor union.
 
Baloney. What if that is the only place in town to work?

They can move to where non-union jobs are.

Or aren't they willing to do what they have to to improve their lives?

That's what y'all say the unemployed should do, right?
 
They can move to where non-union jobs are.

Or aren't they willing to do what they have to to improve their lives?

That's what y'all say the unemployed should do, right?

So what you are saying is if they don't like it...they should just pack up and leave extended family behind and go elsewhere because a fascist labor union prevents them from working without joining the union and paying dues?
 
Now apply your perspective to businesses in small towns who would, or will, refuse to render services to gays.

Incredibly silly strawman. There are laws to prevent discrimination based on race, gender, or gender confusion.
 
So what you are saying is if they don't like it...they should just pack up and leave extended family behind and go elsewhere because a fascist labor union prevents them from working without joining the union and paying dues?

"Go where the jobs are" is a pretty common refrain in threads about minimum wage etc.

So why doesn't it apply in this case?
 
It is still the act of forcing employees to join and pay dues to an organization they want nothing to do with?

No it isnt the presently employed individuals of the company vote if they want the union or they do not. If they choose to accept the union then everyone Hired after that has a choice take the job and join the union or dont take the job. No one is forced
 
Blah, blah, blah...

All the spin on why unions are a good thing do nothing to justify making everyone pay the union even if they don't want to become a member.

If you had a case, then you would also be justified in making pop pay for the "protection" he didn't ask for...all because other shops on the street pay for that protection, too. I mean, THAT'S for his own good, as well...right?

Face it, lpast, you are trying to justify extortion. Why do you support such a thing?

More blah blah blah from a obviously non informed individual, dont want to pay union dues DONT TAKE THE JOB not hard no one is forcing you. Tell you something else EVERYONE loves unions because they make more and have better benefits than any other non union employees doing the same work. Guys like you are either right wing political hacks or sourgrape working for peanuts tards or an employer that hates to pay what his employees are worth because he wants to pocket what they should have.

Undisputable union workers make more than non union workers categorically across the board and thats why republicans that carry the water of the rich hate unions. Plus unions support democrats because republicans always try to stick it to them for the rich skanks like the koch bros.

You have no defense ive been doing this my entire life and I know all the bull**** stories from the right about union workers.

Benjamin Moore Paint factory right next door to a Sherwin Williams factory. Ben Moore non union, sherwin williams union. Same job same work Sherman Williams employees made more got better benes and had a pension plan. Is sherwin williams out of business ? they have grown hugely over the years while paying MORE and giving better benefits.
 
More blah blah blah from a obviously non informed individual, dont want to pay union dues DONT TAKE THE JOB not hard no one is forcing you.

~snipped the blah, blah, blah~

So...your only answer to the guy being extorted is: "Too bad, dude. You don't want to pay up then move out of town."

There are laws against extortion, you know...and there are reasons extortion is against the law. Unfortunately, in WI, there is a judge who thumbs his nose at the law.
 
Good old Dane County. The poor judge would have had his house bombed if he voted otherwise. We will wait and see how the adults still left in Wisconsin rule. I would think that you do have a right to work but that is me.
 
No it isnt the presently employed individuals of the company vote if they want the union or they do not. If they choose to accept the union then everyone Hired after that has a choice take the job and join the union or dont take the job. No one is forced

Wait...what law requires everyone who takes a job there has to become a union member?

Or, is it a condition of the contract the union and the employer agree to? If that's the case, then the employer has no business hiring anybody who is not already a union member. Maybe the union...instead of bothering the worker...should be taking the employer to court for breech of contract.
 
That is fine, but if they opt out (and many do), they should work at different pay and benefits than those who are union. Goes both ways.

If they opt out they should be on their own

If that means they get less pay, so be it

If that means their benefit package doesn't include everything the union one does, so be it

They negotiate on their own...for good or for bad

That is the way it should work

Now if they are a stellar employee, and get more money, good for them

One of the issues with unions is not being able to always recognize the best employees with the best pay
 
Back
Top Bottom