Republicans have secret plans to make Wisconsin a right-to-work (for less) state

[leftofabbie]

Rep. Kapenga at Delafield Town Hall: Right-to-work legislation

Republicans Jim Sensenbrenner and Chris Kapenga held a listening session on Monday night in politically conservative Delafield, Wisconsin; statements made at that meeting left some Waukesha County residents stunned. According to two attendees, Representative Chris Kapenga openly admitted that the GOP has plans to make Wisconsin a right-to-work state and that they’re just waiting for a politically opportune time.

According to Waukesha County resident Leanne Wied-Brusky, when a Town Hall attendee who seemed in favor of right-to-work legislation expressed discontent over the delay in implementation, Kapenga responded, ”We have right-to-work legislation in (three) different offices ready to go. If we had done it earlier, when we wanted, then Prosser would not have been elected. Right now is not the right time. We have to wait until it is politically feasible.”​

So publicly Wisconsin Republicans continue to deny any intent to make Wisconsin a right-to-work (for less) state, but the truth comes out in Delafield, and in Walker's ill-fated "divide and conquer" statement. They are obviously not to be trusted.

More interesting than their fully-expected deceit is the fact they obviously know right-to-work doesn't have the support of the State's voters (see bolded statement).

 

[Wiseone]

People should have the right not to join a Union if they don't wish to. I know the common argument is that the union can provide benefits through collective bargaining which will help a worker in the same industry who isn't a union member, and that's entirely true. However I believe the right of the individual outweighs the right of the union to receive payment, ie dues, for services provided.

Will it lessen the power of the union? Sure, but they'll have to convince people to join and employ new means to organize besides legal force. Of course you get the old communist paradox where an individual can benefit from collective efforts because his individual contribution by itself doesn't change the outcome, but if every individual in the collective thinks the same way the collective goes nowhere.

 

[ARealConservative]

right to work is good law. Iowa and Minnesota has it, Illinois needs it, and Wisconsin wants it.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

People should have the right not to join a Union if they don't wish to. I know the common argument is that the union can provide benefits through collective bargaining which will help a worker in the same industry who isn't a union member, and that's entirely true. However I believe the right of the individual outweighs the right of the union to receive payment, ie dues, for services provided.

Will it lessen the power of the union? Sure, but they'll have to convince people to join and employ new means to organize besides legal force. Of course you get the old communist paradox where an individual can benefit from collective efforts because his individual contribution by itself doesn't change the outcome, but if every individual in the collective thinks the same way the collective goes nowhere.

Right to work seems reasonable, so long as workers who opt out of the union have to negotiate all benefits and pay separately.

 

[leftofabbie]

People should have the right not to join a Union if they don't wish to. I know the common argument is that the union can provide benefits through collective bargaining which will help a worker in the same industry who isn't a union member, and that's entirely true. However I believe the right of the individual outweighs the right of the union to receive payment, ie dues, for services provided.

Will it lessen the power of the union? Sure, but they'll have to convince people to join and employ new means to organize besides legal force. Of course you get the old communist paradox where an individual can benefit from collective efforts because his individual contribution by itself doesn't change the outcome, but if every individual in the collective thinks the same way the collective goes nowhere.

Thanks for taking time to reply. Any comments on the deceit?

 

[ARealConservative]

Right to work seems reasonable, so long as workers who opt out of the union have to negotiate all benefits and pay separately.

and when the company agrees to pay non union workers a higher salary for the same work?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

and when the company agrees to pay non union workers a higher salary for the same work?

Then the union applies pressure. There is no scenario in which the union can allow non-union employees of the same shop to gain extra benefits. The union has an imperative to maintain a premium for union membership, so no doubt ensuring lower non-union wage scales would be part of negotiations.

 

[ARealConservative]

Then the union applies pressure. There is no scenario in which the union can allow non-union employees of the same shop to gain extra benefits. The union has an imperative to maintain a premium for union membership, so no doubt ensuring lower non-union wage scales would be part of negotiations.

so you want the non union worker to be able to bargain seperately, but the unions can't allow these people to get better terms.

The problem though, is once you cut the union out of the equation, workers work harder. And when workers work harder, they deserve more compensation.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

so you want the non union worker to be able to bargain seperately, but the unions can't allow these people to get better terms.

The problem though, is once you cut the union out of the equation, workers work harder. And when workers work harder, they deserve more compensation.

What do you base that on?

And no, one worker rarely has more bargaining power than a large group of workers, so the union should have ample leverage to ensure lopsided benefits that favor union members.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Disagree with these laws and the Taft-Hartley Act which allows this law. It lowers wages, and workers health and safety is put in danger because it weakens unions and their powers. It hurts benefits to the workers.

 

[ARealConservative]

What do you base that on?

my time in a union shop for starters, but human nature as well.

The purpose of a union is to gain power over the employer, who previously held all the power.

Once a person holds more power, they can manifest that power in many different ways. Demand more money. demand less hours. demands lower production requirements.

less hours amounts to less work done. less production requirements also generally means less work completed.

And no, one worker rarely has more bargaining power than a large group of workers, so the union should have ample leverage to ensure lopsided benefits that favor union members.

Some employers actually look to pay people based on merit. They understand that a non union worker didn't fight for lower production requirements, less hours, more vacation, etc, etc, and will be more effective workers deserving a higher salary.

 

[Mycroft]

Rep. Kapenga at Delafield Town Hall: Right-to-work legislation

Republicans Jim Sensenbrenner and Chris Kapenga held a listening session on Monday night in politically conservative Delafield, Wisconsin; statements made at that meeting left some Waukesha County residents stunned. According to two attendees, Representative Chris Kapenga openly admitted that the GOP has plans to make Wisconsin a right-to-work state and that they’re just waiting for a politically opportune time.

According to Waukesha County resident Leanne Wied-Brusky, when a Town Hall attendee who seemed in favor of right-to-work legislation expressed discontent over the delay in implementation, Kapenga responded, ”We have right-to-work legislation in (three) different offices ready to go. If we had done it earlier, when we wanted, then Prosser would not have been elected. Right now is not the right time. We have to wait until it is politically feasible.”​

So publicly Wisconsin Republicans continue to deny any intent to make Wisconsin a right-to-work (for less) state, but the truth comes out in Delafield, and in Walker's ill-fated "divide and conquer" statement. They are obviously not to be trusted.

More interesting than their fully-expected deceit is the fact they obviously know right-to-work doesn't have the support of the State's voters (see bolded statement).

I see no deceit.

The Wisconsin Republicans have simply said that they won't pursue right to work at this time. Kapenga's statement bears that out.

Personally, I support right to work. Colorado is a right to work state and the unions do not enjoy a stranglehold on the workers and the employers.

It's a good thing...promotes freedom.

 

[Dickieboy]

Thanks for taking time to reply. Any comments on the deceit?

Are you implying 'political strategy' is deceit? If so how do you explain “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility"? Is not this another example of ‘deceit’? If not why?

Obama caught on mic telling Medvedev to give US 'space' on nuclear issue | World news | guardian.co.uk

Please don’t let your partisanship blind you.

 

[ARealConservative]

I see no deceit.

The Wisconsin Republicans have simply said that they won't pursue right to work at this time. Kapenga's statement bears that out.

Personally, I support right to work. Colorado is a right to work state and the unions do not enjoy a stranglehold on the workers and the employers.

It's a good thing...promotes freedom.

agreed.

but I would find it hysterical if pro union clowns fought to force these workers to bargain for their own salaries.

What you would quickly see is employers would readily pay more for non union workers,, all the union people would see this, and would leave the union to bargain for higher wages

In Iowa, they understood that this would bust the unions in no time, and don't allow non union workers to bargain for their wages.

 

[Dickieboy]

Now, if your op was targeting the right to work legislation personally I am for it but I don't live in Wisconsin. However those who do elected their representatives who are promoting said legislation. If the electorate does not want RTW they should elect representatives who will not promote such legislation. All else is pissin-n-moaning.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

my time in a union shop for starters, but human nature as well.

The purpose of a union is to gain power over the employer, who previously held all the power.

Once a person holds more power, they can manifest that power in many different ways. Demand more money. demand less hours. demands lower production requirements.

less hours amounts to less work done. less production requirements also generally means less work completed.

If power necessarily corrupts, then powerful employers are necessarily corrupt, making unions all the more necessary. In such a scenario, a union creates a balance of power.

Some employers actually look to pay people based on merit. They understand that a non union worker didn't fight for lower production requirements, less hours, more vacation, etc, etc, and will be more effective workers deserving a higher salary.

Trying to get the most for your labor is inherently lazy? What? The idea that union workers are inherently lesser workers is nonsense. Being in a union is a political position, not a measure of character. Ideally, I'd prefer a system that rewards merit, but the relationship between employer / employee is a political position, and workers are not guaranteed good pay for good performance.

I question the notion that an employer squeezing maximum productivity out of the workforce is good, but an employee squeezing maximum benefit out of an employer is corrupt. As you admitted earlier, employers usually hold most of the power, so if we want the workplace to be a meritocracy where all are treated fairly, it's on the employers to create such an environment.

 

[ARealConservative]

Trying to get the most for your labor is inherently lazy? What?

Who said anything about being lazy?

The idea that union workers are inherently lesser workers is nonsense. Being in a union is a political position, not a measure of character.

Who said anything about lesser?

I question the notion that an employer squeezing maximum productivity out of the workforce is good, but an employee squeezing maximum benefit out of an employer is corrupt.

Who said anything about corruption?

 

[leftofabbie]

I see no deceit.

The Wisconsin Republicans have simply said that they won't pursue right to work at this time. Kapenga's statement bears that out.

Personally, I support right to work. Colorado is a right to work state and the unions do not enjoy a stranglehold on the workers and the employers.

It's a good thing...promotes freedom.

Republicans have said repeatedly that they are not working on, nor do they have any interest in, right-to-work (for less) laws. The Governor said this in testimony before Congress just weeks after his now-infamous "divide and conquer" speech. Plus countless interviews.

If Congress ever gets done with the critical business of determining if Roger Clemens lied to them, maybe they'll get around to the Governor of Wisconsin.

Then there's the issue of withholding legislation to influence the outcome of a State Supreme Court election, but we'll save that for later.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Who said anything about being lazy?



Who said anything about lesser?



Who said anything about corruption?

So you agree that unions are not corrupt, that union workers are productive and that it's acceptable and proper for workers to gain political influence over employers through collective action?

 

[ARealConservative]

So you agree that unions are not corrupt, that union workers are productive

Some unions are corrupt, some are not.

Some union workers are productive, some are not.

and that it's acceptable and proper for workers to gain political influence over employers through collective action?

It is currently legal for some entities (such as unions) to collude for the purpose of artificially raising prices. Acceptable and proper are opinions

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Some unions are corrupt, some are not.

Some union workers are productive, some are not.

Can't disagree with that. I've seen both kinds personally. I believe that it boils down to individual character more than collective culture, and any entity -- employee or employer -- can abuse authority.

It is currently legal for some entities (such as unions) to collude for the purpose of artificially raising prices. Acceptable and proper are opinions

Like I said in my first post, I'm not against open shops so long as participation in collective bargaining is conditional on union membership. "Collusion" implies the collective action is abusive, but it can equally be applied to employer interest groups (the Chamber of Commerce, for example) lobbying for Right To Work to suppress wages. In my opinion, investing power in both employees and employers forces balance and helps prevent such abuses. We should allow all parties to act in their own self-interest and accept the balance that's struck, not attempt to undermine the relationship by skewing the rules one way or the other.

 

[lpast]

Right to work laws are full of malarkey there is no such thing with union workers....the name of the law needs to be changed too...I dont want to pay union dues law...because thats ALL the right to work law does is allow union workers who are ALREADY employed not to pay dues and still recieve the full benefits of the Union and its negotiating and arbitration process's...Unions retain lawyers for the benefit of all members and its shared payed for via dues....this right to work thing is garbage and its just a tool by the far right to gain more control

 

[Dickieboy]

Republicans have said repeatedly that they are not working on, nor do they have any interest in, right-to-work (for less) laws. The Governor said this in testimony before Congress just weeks after his now-infamous "divide and conquer" speech. Plus countless interviews.

Source the highlighted please.

 

[Mycroft]

Republicans have said repeatedly that they are not working on, nor do they have any interest in, right-to-work (for less) laws. The Governor said this in testimony before Congress just weeks after his now-infamous "divide and conquer" speech. Plus countless interviews.

If Congress ever gets done with the critical business of determining if Roger Clemens lied to them, maybe they'll get around to the Governor of Wisconsin.

Then there's the issue of withholding legislation to influence the outcome of a State Supreme Court election, but we'll save that for later.

Your article makes no mention of the Governor, if I recall. It was talking about a Legislator, right? Now, it's entirely possible...and reasonable,,,for legislators to have an agenda that is different from other members of their own Party. It happens at all levels of government.

Your tendency to lump all politicians of a particular Party into one entity is at odds with reality. While a Party may have a common direction, this, by no means, requires the members to be in lockstep...unless we are talking about the Democratic Party, of course.

 

[ARealConservative]

Right to work laws are full of malarkey there is no such thing with union workers

The malarkey is calling the power to form unions as a right.

If it were an actual right, then employers could also form unions seeking to collude and artificially raise prices just an employees do.


so this is named right to work to offset the bull**** power to unionize being called a right to unionize.