• 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!

Are you forr or againstt Right to Work laws?

Are you forr or againstt Right to Work laws?


  • Total voters
    23

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Where do you stand on this important issue and why?
 
Is this a poll?

perhaps a restart is in order. If the person starting this poll was a trained unionized worker he would have done it right.
 
I'm a liberal, of course I'm for those laws. It regulates relationships between two private entities. Why should a business and a union be able to enter into a contract I disagree with? We need more regulation!
 
Where do you stand on this important issue and why?

Can you give a brief summary of what this law means and why it is important? If you do, I will give you an honest response. My state is a "Right To Work" state but I've never fully understood the implications. Can you please explain without political commentary? Just the facts please.
 
Where do you stand on this important issue and why?

I am for right to work laws. Joining a union and or paying union dues should never be a condition of employment.IfI want to be a police officer, fire fighter, public school teacher or some other public sector employee or I want to work in the airlines I should not have to join a union or pay dues. If someone wants to join a union it should be their choice.If for some reason they dislike the main union they should be allowed to form their own union or join a different one. What an employer pays a non-union employee is non of the business of the union.
 
Can you give a brief summary of what this law means and why it is important? If you do, I will give you an honest response. My state is a "Right To Work" state but I've never fully understood the implications. Can you please explain without political commentary? Just the facts please.

Basically a person has a right to work without union representation.
 
I read somewhere that 40% of the voters vote for Republicans yet their dues go to support Democrats and that is not right.
 
I am for right to work laws. Joining a union and or paying union dues should never be a condition of employment.IfI want to be a police officer, fire fighter, public school teacher or some other public sector employee or I want to work in the airlines I should not have to join a union or pay dues. If someone wants to join a union it should be their choice.If for some reason they dislike the main union they should be allowed to form their own union or join a different one. What an employer pays a non-union employee is non of the business of the union.

This.

I've disliked unions since I was 19 years old. The only Corporate American job I ever had was with the phone company. I had to join the union. I hated that I was forced to pay to some business entity to negotiate on my behalf. And hold me back. And write my rules. Even at 19, I got it. And still do.

I don't mind them in the private sector. Public sector? I think they should be illegal.
 
Can you give a brief summary of what this law means and why it is important? If you do, I will give you an honest response. My state is a "Right To Work" state but I've never fully understood the implications. Can you please explain without political commentary? Just the facts please.

Right to work laws simply mean that closed shops are illegal. A closed shop is where union membership or paying union dues is a mandatory condition of employment of that place that is a closed shop.
 
This.

I've disliked unions since I was 19 years old. The only Corporate American job I ever had was with the phone company. I had to join the union. I hated that I was forced to pay to some business entity to negotiate on my behalf. And hold me back. And write my rules. Even at 19, I got it. And still do.

I don't mind them in the private sector. Public sector? I think they should be illegal.

Many years ago unions performed a necessary service for the employees but they have long ago outlived out their usefulness.
 
This.

I've disliked unions since I was 19 years old. The only Corporate American job I ever had was with the phone company. I had to join the union. I hated that I was forced to pay to some business entity to negotiate on my behalf. And hold me back. And write my rules. Even at 19, I got it. And still do.

I don't mind them in the private sector. Public sector? I think they should be illegal.

I have no problems with people joining unions as long as it is their choice. I think public sector union contracts should be voted on by the tax payers since they are ones footing the bill.And things like tenure and trial de novas to fire employees should be eliminated.It shouldn't cost an arm and a leg to fire a bad employee.
 
Basically a person has a right to work without union representation.

I have confused "Right To Work with "At Will". I've just done some quick scanning by Google and I would say that I don't see that "Right To Work" makes much difference. It seems that you get the option of not being in the Union, which should be your right. Most jobs here are Union, so apparently it isn't a problem.

I do have less support for "At Will" laws because they are unfair (IMHO). If you terminate someone, there should be a valid reason, not just that you want to give your buddy someones job if they are doing their job correctly.
 
Where do you stand on this important issue and why?

All you have to do is look at my country's manufacturing history in the 1970's to see where over-powerful unions and union practices beggared us and made us the sick man of Europe.

It took Maggie Thatcher to stand up to the unions and close down on closed shop and other practices which had nothing to do with building our manufacturing and had everything to do with making it hard to change working practice or get rid of incompetent workers.

Never again for the UK.
 
Right to work laws simply mean that closed shops are illegal. A closed shop is where union membership or paying union dues is a mandatory condition of employment of that place that is a closed shop.

Then I think I support the Right To Work laws although they don't seem to apply here in reality. I'll have to learn more, but I don't see why you should be forced into a Union.
 
Then I think I support the Right To Work laws although they don't seem to apply here in reality. I'll have to learn more, but I don't see why you should be forced into a Union.

Because employers should be able to hire and fire whoever they like, unless unions are involved.
 
I'm a liberal, of course I'm for those laws. It regulates relationships between two private entities. Why should a business and a union be able to enter into a contract I disagree with? We need more regulation!

Just pile it on!
 
Many years ago unions performed a necessary service for the employees but they have long ago outlived out their usefulness.

For what it's worth, there are a GREAT many people who disagree with that.

I work in a largely unionized profession (librarianship) and as such participate in a number of discussion forums where the overwhelming majority of the membership is unionized.

I know a lot of people who benefit (or at least those who claim to benefit, though I see no reason why they'd be lying about it) from unions in a real and tangible way on a regular basis.

Personally, I'm not union labor. I'll never be union labor. I don't work in a public or academic library in large part because, living in a non right to work state (NJ), doing so would expose me to labor unionism.

I support right to work laws and I oppose public unions.

But to say that unions have outlived their usefulness or that they're no longer relevant is shortsighted.

I just prefer to be judged on my merits, to negotiate for my own compensation, and to address issues with my employers directly.

I prefer not to be beholden to a union or to feel as though I need "the collective" holding my hand.

For folks who feel differently, for those who may not be confident in the product they deliver, for those who aren't assertive enough to stand up for themselves, for those living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford an extended hiatus from employment that may come from not toeing what they feel to be an unreasonable line, I think a union might be just the thing and it might benefit them tremendously.
 
Then I think I support the Right To Work laws although they don't seem to apply here in reality. I'll have to learn more, but I don't see why you should be forced into a Union.

Closed shop supporters claim it weakens workers bargaining power and to eliminate what they call free riders. Free riders are basically people who get the benefits of a union without union participation.Like if hypothetically a union got a company to agree to a 4 week vacation for new employees and a 2 dollar shift deferential.If that company decided to extend those benefits to non-union employees, that would be a form of free riding.
 
...

I do have less support for "At Will" laws because they are unfair (IMHO). If you terminate someone, there should be a valid reason, not just that you want to give your buddy someones job if they are doing their job correctly.

All employees are "At Will" if there isn't an employment contract, and that is the way it should be. If a person wants to enter into an employment contract which gives both parties rights as well as defines the duties of each party, then that's great. But many employees wouldn't want to be required by contract to meet a minimum level of production or work level, so employment contracts are only a normal tool at management levels.

If an employee is prepared to make a legal commitment to the employer, then the employer should be willing to make a legal commitment to the employee. Short of that, it's "At Will" for both parties. The employee can quit to pursue a higher pay or a better hours job or for whatever reason they choose, and the employer can fire (or layoff) the employee (the employee is eligible for unemployment if this happens) and either hire another employee to replace them or reduce the companies overhead through attrition by not filling the open position.

At Will is an important part of almost every business model, even and especially for the employees to have their own freedom as well.
 
Because employers should be able to hire and fire whoever they like, unless unions are involved.

I've seen the abuse of this "law" where a new pit boss was hired and immediately fired excellent employees so he could bring his friend on board. IMHO, you should be able to terminate - but with a legitimate reason, not just "because you can".

I also don't think it's fair that an employer should be forced to keep a provably incompetent employee just because of a Union either.

What ever happened to "fairness"?

In practice, I think that arbitrary termination leaves you vulnerable to lawsuit - and I agree that such terminations are wrong. Yes, I've been an employer and I've fired people but they did something in violation of policy (such as bringing drugs on property).
 
Closed shop supporters claim it weakens workers bargaining power and to eliminate what they call free riders. Free riders are basically people who get the benefits of a union without union participation.Like if hypothetically a union got a company to agree to a 4 week vacation for new employees and a 2 dollar shift deferential.If that company decided to extend those benefits to non-union employees, that would be a form of free riding.

I'll have to inquire about this. AFAIK, some jobs, like Culinary, are 100% Union but I'll find out how this works.

All employees are "At Will" if there isn't an employment contract, and that is the way it should be. If a person wants to enter into an employment contract which gives both parties rights as well as defines the duties of each party, then that's great. But many employees wouldn't want to be required by contract to meet a minimum level of production or work level, so employment contracts are only a normal tool at management levels.

If an employee is prepared to make a legal commitment to the employer, then the employer should be willing to make a legal commitment to the employee. Short of that, it's "At Will" for both parties. The employee can quit to pursue a higher pay or a better hours job or for whatever reason they choose, and the employer can fire (or layoff) the employee (the employee is eligible for unemployment if this happens) and either hire another employee to replace them or reduce the companies overhead through attrition by not filling the open position.

At Will is an important part of almost every business model, even and especially for the employees to have their own freedom as well.

Just as I don't think it's OK to quit without proper notice, I don't think it's OK to terminate without reason. Obviously, just an opinion©.
 
Just as I don't think it's OK to quit without proper notice, I don't think it's OK to terminate without reason. Obviously, just an opinion©.

I agree to a point.

First, there's a huge difference between having the freedom to quit at any point in time (even with giving a notice) and an employer not being able to terminate an employee unless they have a reason the employee or others understands or feel is legitimate. This puts an undue restraint on the employer and their company when it comes to making choices that they feel is in the best interest of their company.

Second, if an employee is terminated, there was a reason or the employee wouldn't have been terminated. The employee may not agree with that reason. And, the reason may be totally ridiculous, as in your excellent example in an earlier post of the pit boss cleaning house to hire his buddies (this should be addressed by company practices and procedures). But, the employee can still leave at any time they want to for whatever reason they want, even if the employer feels it was a ridiculous reason, so the employer and employee have the same level of power over their own future.

Third, as to a notice given by either the employee or employer... An employer cannot give notice of a termination with a delay in departure in most instances since the employer would be opening themselves to sabotage or worse by a potentially disgruntled soon to be ex-employee. In the case of a mass layoff, notice is historically given to the entirety of the workforce that it's coming, but the individuals that will be furloughed are usually not informed until the day it actually occurs. As to the employee giving notice to the employer of their quitting, this has historically been done as a professional courtesy to ensure a good reference be given by their soon to be previous employer to potential new employers. If the employee gets p'ed off at the employer and leaves on bad terms, they probably wont give notice, walk out that minute, and not care about the reference from that job.
 
OK, I made some calls to people I know that work for the Casinos. Here is my anecdotal information.

Almost all "hourly workers" are in a Union. They do NOT have to join the Union or pay dues to receive the exact same benefits but the Union will not defend them if they get in trouble whereas paid Union members will have better representation.

98% of all these workers are indeed Union members. Why asked Specklebang? Why would you pay for something that is potentially free?

The answer (educated guess) is that it is out of loyalty, intimidation and stupidity (a snarky comment - not a fact) has caused virtually everyone to sign up.

So, it seems not to matter too much and people like the perceived safety of Union membership.

I have issues with fairness. I believe you should "pay your way". I think if I worked in a Union job, I would be comfortable paying the dues, just about as comfortable as I feel about paying taxes. I don't WANT to pay taxes or dues or anything, but I'm philosophical about it. (That's why I'm a DISCOUNT Philosopher, not a particularly good one).

Apparently, 98% of the people feel the way I do and this comfort or confidence is worth the price of the ticket, they join so it would seem that "right to work" is not harmful and gives us a rarely seen glimpse of personal choice in an increasingly micromanaged society.
 
I'm in favor of right to work laws IF they come with a corresponding laws that doesn't require unions to represent people who don't pay dues. I don't like the current situation where people can refuse to pay union dues but the union is still required by law to represent them.
 
Unions are protected under the 1st amendment but no one should be compelled to join one.
 
Back
Top Bottom