• 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!

Canada demands U.S. end ‘right to work’ laws as part of NAFTA talks

Right to work laws sound good, but in reality, it's boon for business and a bad deal for workers. The law generally states that a worker has a right to leave a job whenever they want, and an employer can terminate an employee whenever they want. This gives the illusion of fairness and "freedom of choice"

But the reality is that in the employee/employer relationship, it's the employer with the power, and with the least to lose.

What do I mean by this? Well, an employee usually needs a job more than the employer needs the employee. If an employee is terminated, there are usually coworkers that have been cross trained who will pick up the extra work from the terminated employee. the remaining employees will take up the slack without complaint because they are afraid they could be next. If not, the employer can usually find a replacement fairly quickly. (especially in bad economy). The employee on the other hand has just lost their primary source of income, and could potentially be in serious financial trouble if they can't secure a new job fast.

The only liability an employer typically incurs when terminating an employee is "2 weeks pay in lieu of notice". In most cases, the employer requires an employee to sign a contract agreeing not to sue or discuss the employer in exchange for the 2 weeks pay. Terminating employees under "right to work" is a low risk/high return gift to the corporate world.
 
What some do not understandis that
today no country in the world would(outside the US) has the means to invade Canada. Canada on the other hand could not afford to make itself so strong militarily to prevent military attacks on it. Give the size of Canada, the low population a budget of 100 billion would be required. We could do for a few years then go broke
 
Union employees sketchy up. Paltry % of employees. Employers ""holding all the cards" as you put works pretty damned well. What DOESN'T work well is when unions negotiate companies right out of business.

Well, as someone on the front lines who is expected to do management's dirty work, I'd say, unions are a good thing for the people with no leg to negotiate better working conditions or pay or demand any real rights, actually. I'm about to quit a job because I refuse to "lay off" long term employees without severance or any other separation benefits, including the absurd notion of stripping them of their accumulated vacation time.

Right to work, my ass. It's right to treat your employees like crap.
 
Then they can regulate the interstate and international sales. But, it's none of the federal government's business how the state regulates corporations that the state, not the federal government, authorizes to do business within its borders. There are no federal corporations, only state corporations or foreign corporations authorized to do business in a foreign state by that state.

Want to change that? Then get your Congressman to introduce an amendment to the Constitution, and then get it to pass both houses by a 2/3rds majorities, and then get approved by 2/3rds of the state legislatures. I assume you can read the Constitution?

Fine, then the feds can cut the companies in those states out of interstate deals and international trade. Play ball, or you are out. Simple as how they enforced national speed limits and drinking ages.
 
Well, as someone on the front lines who is expected to do management's dirty work, I'd say, unions are a good thing for the people with no leg to negotiate better working conditions or pay or demand any real rights, actually. I'm about to quit a job because I refuse to "lay off" long term employees without severance or any other separation benefits, including the absurd notion of stripping them of their accumulated vacation time.

Right to work, my ass. It's right to treat your employees like crap.

And yet you work there? I don't think they can legally take away someone's vacation time if it's company policy.
 
Fine, then the feds can cut the companies in those states out of interstate deals and international trade. Play ball, or you are out. Simple as how they enforced national speed limits and drinking ages.

They don't set speed limits nationwide. Neither do they set drinking laws nationwide.
 
Fine, then the feds can cut the companies in those states out of interstate deals and international trade. Play ball, or you are out. Simple as how they enforced national speed limits and drinking ages.

The feds don't negotiate and control interstate or international deals between companies and their customers, that would be Communism. They regulate it. There's a difference.
 
They don't set speed limits nationwide. Neither do they set drinking laws nationwide.

You never heard of the national 55 mph speed limit law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Drinking age? The Feds used pressure on states to force them to do adhere to 21 or give up highway funds.

In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10% of their federal highway funds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state
 
The feds don't negotiate and control interstate or international deals between companies and their customers, that would be Communism. They regulate it. There's a difference.

Feds have 100% jurisdiction and authority over interstate commerce and international treaties. You should know that.
 
And yet you work there? I don't think they can legally take away someone's vacation time if it's company policy.

I won't be working there for long. I took a surprise three-week vacation once all this crap came down. I'm probably going to be fired Monday when I go back. I already have another job 90% locked up :lol:

They changed company vacation policy a few months ago, probably in preparation for this upcoming layoff. "Use it or lose it" vacation policy went into effect in June. That's why I took my three remaining weeks. I knew I would be quitting ASAP.
 
I won't be working there for long. I took a surprise three-week vacation once all this crap came down. I'm probably going to be fired Monday when I go back. I already have another job 90% locked up :lol:

They changed company vacation policy a few months ago, probably in preparation for this upcoming layoff. "Use it or lose it" vacation policy went into effect in June.

I doubt they can fire someone and not pay for accrued vacation... Glad you have something else in the wings. Sounds like the company is in some trouble...?
 
Jurisdiction to regulate, not negotiate.

Yeah, regulate a non-compliant state right out of any deals, if they so choose. Really all they have to do is end government contracts on any company that does not comply--almost every major US firm is on the gvt teat these days.
 
Whoever in the Canadian government that said that, or came up with that idea, has absolutely no idea how the US system of government works (a Constitutional Republic), or how our Constitution is laid out and how it LIMITS the power of the federal government.

If that's a go-no go point for NAFTA and the Canadians, well then, NAFTA with the Canadians and the US, is done.

It's not dissimilar to those countries who harangue the Feds to end the death penalty nationwide. They can't.
 
Yeah, regulate a non-compliant state right out of any deals, if they so choose. Really all they have to do is end government contracts on any company that does not comply--almost every major US firm is on the gvt teat these days.

I'm truly sorry you're going through what you're going through with your job. I hope you the best and that Monday isn't as bad as you may think. I mean that calamity. I truly do.
 
If that's a go-no go point for NAFTA and the Canadians, well then, NAFTA with the Canadians and the US, is done.

Mmm...lol... Should point out we are your second biggest trading partner, with by far the lowest trade deficit of your top 5 trading partners, so I'm not sure ending trade agreements with us would be handled so nonchalantly. That said, this is a ballsy demand...lol... My guess is it's a bargaining chip, I don't think anyone seriously thinks you're going to do this.
 
Mmm...lol... Should point out we are your second biggest trading partner, with by far the lowest trade deficit of your top 5 trading partners, so I'm not sure ending trade agreements with us would be handled so nonchalantly. That said, this is a ballsy demand...lol... My guess is it's a bargaining chip, I don't think anyone seriously thinks you're going to do this.

It's not nonchalance. "Right to work" laws are a state matter over which the federal government has no authority. It's a demand which simply cannot be met, full stop.
 
Mmm...lol... Should point out we are your second biggest trading partner, with by far the lowest trade deficit of your top 5 trading partners, so I'm not sure ending trade agreements with us would be handled so nonchalantly. That said, this is a ballsy demand...lol... My guess is it's a bargaining chip, I don't think anyone seriously thinks you're going to do this.

I'm sure we don't want to end our trading agreement, but we're not the one making the outrageous demand, and I have an item you may want to understand - we're a sovereign nation that is founded upon a Constitution that lays out what our government cannot do, and limits it to certain minimal powers, unlike your country where the government can screw over whomever they wish. So, we aren't going to have your nation, or any other nation, demand that we do anything that we don't want to do, especially something that's not allowed under our Constitution.

If that means stopping trade with you? Well. That's your choice, not ours.
 
And yet you work there? I don't think they can legally take away someone's vacation time if it's company policy.

I work for a company that has been building Navy equipment since WWI, now located in coastal Georgia. We had an meeting about the hurricane on Thursday. After the speech by the president, HR reminded us that even though we could not come to work Monday or Tuesday, we would need to use vacation or personal time to cover that. This was true of hurricane Mathew last year. And if you didn't have enough time on the books, it would be deducted from the next years allotted hours.
It's not a horrible place to work. We have good health benefits, matching IRA funds to 6%. It is challenging work, we build cool stuff, but they cut people like they served no real purpose and then act surprised when others can't fulfill that function on top of the job they already had. This is all to serve a business model based entirely upon revenue and growth. If we can't meet projected revenue, regardless of how inflated, then cuts will be made, raises will be put off and bonuses, well those were the first thing to go.
 
It's not nonchalance. "Right to work" laws are a state matter over which the federal government has no authority. It's a demand which simply cannot be met, full stop.

I'm sure we don't want to end our trading agreement, but we're not the one making the outrageous demand, and I have an item you may want to understand - we're a sovereign nation that is founded upon a Constitution that lays out what our government cannot do, and limits it to certain minimal powers, unlike your country where the government can screw over whomever they wish. So, we aren't going to have your nation, or any other nation, demand that we do anything that we don't want to do, especially something that's not allowed under our Constitution.

If that means stopping trade with you? Well. That's your choice, not ours.

I mean, that's interesting and all, but realistically speaking, the theatre that has been this NAFTA renegotiation so far notwithstanding, you're not going to stop trading with us...lol...
 
I mean, that's interesting and all, but realistically speaking, the theatre that has been this NAFTA renegotiation so far notwithstanding, you're not going to stop trading with us...lol...

Probably not, and your not going to tell us how to run our country.
 
I'm truly sorry you're going through what you're going through with your job. I hope you the best and that Monday isn't as bad as you may think. I mean that calamity. I truly do.

Thanks. It was time to move on, I guess. I was starting to get a little bored anyway. Actually, my highlight of the day lately has been riding my bike to work and back. The middle management thing wasn't really my thing.

I'll be going back into technical project management. Pay is actually a bit better. And, the job will be much more mentally challenging. I probably should have done this about a year ago.

I just hope I get a chance to quit before being fired. :)
 
I mean, that's interesting and all, but realistically speaking, the theatre that has been this NAFTA renegotiation so far notwithstanding, you're not going to stop trading with us...lol...

Who said anything about stopping trade with Canada? There was trade with Canada before NAFTA, and there will be in any possible post-NAFTA world, too.

Do you think trade is only possible if NAFTA is in force?
 
Back
Top Bottom