Right To Work States.... Are Working

[TurtleDude]

Bullshyt. Yes, absolutely, for some companies, if you get a job there you must join their labor union.

aka an agency shop (pay dues) or a closed shop (join the union)

society should support freedom. we should abolish closed shops and probably agency shops

 

[TurtleDude]

One could just as easily ask some rather pertinent questions of you and your "'experience' with unions: Lets try these shall we?

How many workers have you screwed out of their wages?

How many workers have you cheated out of their benefits?

How many union workers have you denied their rights to?

How many times have you lined up as the hired gun of a company against the interests of working people?

A labor attorney works for labor. Somehow, someway, I suspect you were on the opposite side working for management.

You obviously are unaware of the wage and hours act. if someone works they cannot be "screwed out of their wages"

if someone comes to work knowing what the wages are and works they get what they bargain for. if someone is offered 15 an hour and are only paid 10 an hour they have a contract claim in any court of competent jurisdiction

how much of the tax payers money did your union rip off?

Labor attorneys work either for management or labor. I have done both. Just as I do now.

You on the other hand have never been on the management side. so where do you get off whining about management

if you showed up for work you agreed to the terms

stop whining if you didn't bargain well

 

[TurtleDude]

no... golden geese do not fly... pigeons fly.

geo.

You can tell that line to all the union sloths in Detroit who saw their jobs go away. Right to work states are sucking in a lot of companies.


that might be why Haymarket thinks the federal government (this is rich-coming from a guy who whines I hate the constitution when he wants to rape federalism) should PREVENT one state from trying to entice businesses to relocate to that state by promises of better taxes and other benefits.

he wants to impose the high costs of mediocrity and welfare socialism on every state and every employer

 

[Geo Patric]

union sloths

now ya see... i was feeling guilty for accusing you of bias.... thanks.

geo.

 

[cpwill]

and again
you would be wrong
assume some more

really? so if up front as a condition of employment you were told "if you work here, you can't join or try to start a union" you would be cool with that as an option?

I'm simply surprised because I've mentioned this a couple of times before, and you are the first pro-closed-shop advocate I've seen who is willing to say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Geo Patric]

really? so if up front as a condition of employment you were told "if you work here, you can't join or try to start a union" you would be cool with that as an option?

well, i would expect he would call a lawyer as that would be illegal.

geo.

 

[randel]

I am a labor lawyer. I know exactly what I am speaking of. The primary goal of a union is to get more money for less work

you know squat and it shows with statements like that.

 

[randel]

Bullshyt. Yes, absolutely, for some companies, if you get a job there you must join their labor union.

my statement stands, you are not 'forced' to do anything, you have a choice, you make a decision. no gun being held to your head.

 

[cpwill]

wait...you are crying about an election that requires 50% +1? i may be mistaken, but i seem to remember most elections in the united states being something like this......hmmmmmm

no, i'm saying 50% +1 of the people that you run through an expedited vote gives the Union an unfair advantage - they are reducing the time before elections at the same time as they are making this move - seeking to give unions the ability to rush through an election in such a manner that the pro-union employees vote and those who don't want to join, don't.

 

[cpwill]

well, i would expect he would call a lawyer as that would be illegal.

geo.

precisely. the law is currently tilted unfairly in favor of unions.

 

[haymarket]

You obviously are unaware of the wage and hours act. if someone works they cannot be "screwed out of their wages"

if someone comes to work knowing what the wages are and works they get what they bargain for. if someone is offered 15 an hour and are only paid 10 an hour they have a contract claim in any court of competent jurisdiction

how much of the tax payers money did your union rip off?

Labor attorneys work either for management or labor. I have done both. Just as I do now.

You on the other hand have never been on the management side. so where do you get off whining about management

if you showed up for work you agreed to the terms

stop whining if you didn't bargain well

As I suspected, you avoided the answers to my questions.

When you respond to inquiries like this, I have to wonder if you really do have any practical experience because your answer (for what they are) belie any actual real world experience.

For example - what you say about "not bargaining well" completely ignores that both sides can agree to a contract but then fail to honor the terms of that contract resulting in a dispute. Your vague and vitriolic answers seem far more intent on attacking me than they do providing actual information about your experiences.

How much money did the union I belong to rip off from taxpayers? None that I am aware of. I know from my experience that I gave back much more in labor and service than my contract demanded. But in my profession as an educator, that is not unusual.

Why do you make statements about me that you have no information with which to substantiate those allegations? You claim I have never been in management and only know the issue from one side. This is patently false. I can do you a lot better than holding some lower or middle management position. I owned my own company for many years and hired people to work for me negotiating contracts with them and enforcing those contracts. Two different companies in fact. So please save your pompous pronouncements for something you actually know something about.

You claim that you work for unions. Do they know the extreme prejudice you hold against unions? Do they know they are employing someone who despises unions and hates working people and routinely castigates and criticizes them?

 

[Kal'Stang]

ah, yeah... nothing like a sound unbiased source. so... how about some facts from another.. the AFL/CIO?
Sure folks like you (i assume you are bidness owner who hires others) LOVE RTW... there are fewer protections for workers and more for employers. more republican pandering to business and leave the worker twisting.
lets consider:

• The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in free states
• 21% more folks have NO health insurance in RTW states
• poverty rate in RTW: 12.5% - free states: 10.2
• max weekly comp bennies in RTW are 30% less than free states.
• and workplace safety? deaths in the workplace in RTW states is 52% higher than in free states.according to the bureau of labor statistics.

yeah... employers are happy, hirng more, paying them less. that is a GOOD thing?

Just out of curiosity do you have any evidence of this beyond a biased site? You mention the bereau of labor statistics but I see no link to it.

However I can say that while RTW states may pay less than union states, the expenses in a RTW state are also less. As such I would imagine that it evens out. One such example is rentals. Here in Idaho (a RTW state) I can rent a 3 bedroom house for anywheres from $450-$1000 a month in the area that I live in. Dependent on acreage and how big the house is. (yes, we do acreage here...small towns are wonderful) Yet my brother who lives in Washington (a union state) couldn't find a place to rent for less than $1,000/month...and the area he's in doesn't do acreage, and he also needed a 3 bedroom house.

 

[cpwill]

excellent point. that 5K shrinks when comparing how much it costs to live in New York v Tennessee.

 

[Geo Patric]

precisely. the law is currently tilted unfairly in favor of unions.

??? to NOT disallow people from joining perfectly legal organizations... is "tilting"?

you have a peculiar view of the rights of citizens.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Just out of curiosity do you have any evidence of this beyond a biased site? You mention the bereau of labor statistics but I see no link to it.

were you not reading? i responded to comment based on a biased citation with a comment based on a biased citation. it was intentional. it was less a comment on unions as it was a comment on the use of biased sources.

Here in Idaho (a RTW state) I can rent a 3 bedroom house for anywheres from $450-$1000 a month in the area that I live in.

and? that means something? do you mean to suggest that if you were NOT an RTW state those things would not be true?

does that account for the increased number of workplace deaths, too?

geo.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

it is dishonest, to expect the same benefits, same pay, and get representation, without contributing the costs/administration of the contract.

This it typical union thuggery, ":join us, pay us or else".... WE see it on job sites, we see it in the media, we personally deal with it because we are a non union shop and folks who are union when we are on the same site tend to thug it up for jobs they don't want to do.


We see this mentality here.

 

[Geo Patric]

This it typical union thuggery, ":join us, pay us or else".... WE see it on job sites, we see it in the media, we personally deal with it because we are a non union shop and folks who are union when we are on the same site tend to thug it up for jobs they don't want to do.


We see this mentality here.

this is preposterous. the motion picture industry is one of the most profitable in the nation and relies on a multiplicity of unions. there are disputes and work stoppages and resolutions. because eveyone knows how much money is at issue.

all major sports are unionized. again, there are disputes and resolutions.

that the only way to 'fix' a problem is to murder one's opponent is the thinking of a bully, at best, or a fascist. The AFL/CIO has undergone massive changes since its inception. it still works.

you do not fix you car by tossing it into the junkyard. you do not fix your marriage by throttling your spouse. you do not fix a problem with your laborers by negating their rightful interest in their own well being.

geo.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

this is preposterous. the motion picture industry is one of the most profitable in the nation and relies on a multiplicity of unions. there are disputes and work stoppages and resolutions. because eveyone knows how much money is at issue.

all major sports are unionized. again, there are disputes and resolutions.

that the only way to 'fix' a problem is to murder one's opponent is the thinking of a bully, at best, or a fascist. The AFL/CIO has undergone massive changes since its inception. it still works.

you do not fix you car by tossing it into the junkyard. you do not fix your marriage by throttling your spouse. you do not fix a problem with your laborers by negating their rightful interest in their own well being.

geo.

Tell me then, why do they get all pissy when I have my guys run Low voltage cable?

 

[Geo Patric]

Tell me then, why do they get all pissy when I have my guys run Low voltage cable?

well, if i wanted to know the answer to that question, i would probably ask someone who knows what that means and actually cares. i am neither.

geo.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

well, if i wanted to know the answer to that question, i would probably ask someone who knows what that means and actually cares. i am neither.

geo.

Unions act as bullies and thugs, you can see it in this thread, My anecdote continues this mindset showing the lack of freedom the unions in general support.

 

[Geo Patric]

Unions act as bullies and thugs, you can see it in this thread, My anecdote continues this mindset showing the lack of freedom the unions in general support.

more binary view propaganda... useless to any thinking individual.

geo.

 

[randel]

no, i'm saying 50% +1 of the people that you run through an expedited vote gives the Union an unfair advantage - they are reducing the time before elections at the same time as they are making this move - seeking to give unions the ability to rush through an election in such a manner that the pro-union employees vote and those who don't want to join, don't.

the unions have nothing to do with when the vote is scheduled.. that is NLRB territory....elections work the same way as they do in this country, if you vote, your vote is counted, if you don't vote, you made a choice not to, no one denied you your vote. again, your ignorance on this topic is showing, i'm sorry cp, while i respect your opinion on many issues, your knowledge on this topic is lacking.

 

[Kal'Stang]

were you not reading? i responded to comment based on a biased citation with a comment based on a biased citation. it was intentional. it was less a comment on unions as it was a comment on the use of biased sources.

Yes I realized it. Which is why I asked politely for another source instead of just mocking you for using a biased site.

and? that means something? do you mean to suggest that if you were NOT an RTW state those things would not be true?

I mean to suggest that the wage differences between a unionized state and that of a RTW state is a moot point as the cost of living is different between the two.

does that account for the increased number of workplace deaths, too?

This is why I asked you for another, less biased, source. To verify this claim. You mentioned the bureau of labor statistics, I would easily accept that.

 

[Geo Patric]

Yes I realized it. Which is why I asked politely for another source instead of just mocking you for using a biased site.



I mean to suggest that the wage differences between a unionized state and that of a RTW state is a moot point as the cost of living is different between the two.



This is why I asked you for another, less biased, source. To verify this claim. You mentioned the bureau of labor statistics, I would easily accept that.

actually, i cited the AFL's citation of the BLS. you are free to doubt the stats and i would not blame you if you did, though i expect they are probably valid, if not complete.

here is a true thing... probably. probably ND did not have a BIG issue with unions BEFORE they became a RTW state. so... why did they become a RTW state? to attempt to draw workers away from states where workers are protected by law from being underpaid, overworked and fired for whatever reason the boss can come up with or no reason at all.

now, the question arises... how many companies making real dollars and suffering under the yoke if unions are hightailing to ND?

well... Motion Pictures are spreading our all over... but they are going to Canana a lot more that to ND... and canada... well, you know what a socialist prison state CANADA is.

Auto manufacturers are moving outta the rust belt... but not to RTW states. Michigan (of course), Alabama a RTW state, Ohio )a free state), Indiana (a free state), and Missouri (a free state) are the states with most aiuto manufacturing. now, see... being an RTW state negates the provisions of Taft-Hartley that allows for agreement with unions to exclude non-union memebers... it does not negate the right to oprganize.

now... do you think that in that ONE RTW state auto manufature is nonunion?

of the top 10 coal moning states in the union, two are RTW. do you think that mines in those states are nonunion? are there no unionized mine workers in Wy?

sure... some companies will move there. if any serious manufacturing companies locate in decide to plunk down in Omaha.. expect neb to be come a free state in short order.

geo.

 

[haymarket]

This it typical union thuggery, ":join us, pay us or else".... WE see it on job sites, we see it in the media, we personally deal with it because we are a non union shop and folks who are union when we are on the same site tend to thug it up for jobs they don't want to do.


We see this mentality here.

Regardless of what you have convinced yourself that you "see", perhaps you can give us some verifiable information so the rest of us can "see" what you also "see"?