Unions and Democrat state legislatures launch preemptive attack on worker rights

Ahead of a Janus v. AFSCME decision expected to make the entire nation's public sector 'right to work' in June, liberal state legislatures are already working up alternative ways to require public sector workers to contribute to unions even if such coercion is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

For example, in New York, S5778 would make it more difficult for workers to opt out of paying dues.

New Jersey Bill S2137 would severely restrict the window of time within which workers are allowed to exercise their rights to opt out.

Washington HB 2751 would mandate state collection of dues on behalf of public sector unions.

Washington Senate Bill 6082 would prohibit public employers from even informing employees of their right to not pay a union. What kind of demented person tries to make it illegal for an employer to factually notify an employee of his or her rights under the law?

https://www.watchdog.org/national/s...cle_fa248504-3448-11e8-a434-334470fdf4e2.html

Neomalthusian said:

Ahead of a Janus v. AFSCME decision expected to make the entire nation's public sector 'right to work' in June, liberal state legislatures are already working up alternative ways to require public sector workers to contribute to unions even if such coercion is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

For example, in New York, S5778 would make it more difficult for workers to opt out of paying dues.

New Jersey Bill S2137 would severely restrict the window of time within which workers are allowed to exercise their rights to opt out.

Washington HB 2751 would mandate state collection of dues on behalf of public sector unions.

Washington Senate Bill 6082 would prohibit public employers from even informing employees of their right to not pay a union. What kind of demented person tries to make it illegal for an employer to factually notify an employee of his or her rights under the law?

https://www.watchdog.org/national/s...cle_fa248504-3448-11e8-a434-334470fdf4e2.html

Click to expand...

Picture this: you're a strongly-conservative government worker and you're discriminated against by your supervisor in a way that really affected not just your career, but even your very health. Problem is, you can't sue because you can't afford a lawyer.

What do you do? Sure, you can quit...but you've got nearly twenty years on the job and you don't want to lose your career...but you also don't want your supervisor to get away with what she did. But since you can't afford a lawyer, you're screwed - the supervisor will get away with it, and you won't get crap except for how your career and health were wrongly harmed by her.

But wait! The union can represent you - that's a big part of what they do - and they do it for free. They win the case, and you get justice and compensation for what was done to you...and you didn't have to pay a penny but your union dues.

-----------------------------------

The above, btw, was a true story. One of my best friends worked for immigration, and he was (and remains) strongly conservative. The union didn't care that he was a union-bashing conservative - the union did what it does, and he got the justice and compensation he deserved.

What y'all on the Right don't seem to get is that while unions are certainly not perfect, they're often your ONLY defense when the ones you work for screw over your career and your life. Union dues are also not onerous - more than anything, they're analogous to an insurance policy, the assurance that someone will be there to represent you, to be on your side when the company screws you over.

Instead, y'all on the Right have allowed Big Business to convince you that all unions are bad...and so you allow the companies to screw you over time and time and time again (and you'll have NO way to afford a lawyer to represent you in court)...all so you don't have to pay a relative pittance in union dues, 'cause unions are a liberal thing and you think all liberal ideas are bad/evil/terrible.

Never been in a union, but I support them, warts and all. Better than the alternative which is what we had before unions. Sweat shops and virtual slave wages.

I'm a bit torn on this, because I'm a strong supporter of unions in the private sector, but not in public service. I hate to see Right to Work expanded even further, but I don't want the unions in our government. I believe public service is a privilege.

Chomsky said:

I'm a bit torn on this, because I'm a strong supporter of unions in the private sector, but not in public service. I hate to see Right to Work expanded even further, but I don't want the unions in our government. I believe public service is a privilege.

Click to expand...

Read #2 - that really happened to a government worker.

The only place where I believe unions don't belong is in the military - otherwise, the rank-and-file who can't afford lawyers simply don't stand a chance. For them, it's either suck it up and tolerate the injustice...or face the very real possibility of financial ruin.

Glen Contrarian said:

Picture this: you're a strongly-conservative government worker and you're discriminated against by your supervisor in a way that really affected not just your career, but even your very health. Problem is, you can't sue because you can't afford a lawyer.

What do you do? Sure, you can quit...but you've got nearly twenty years on the job and you don't want to lose your career...but you also don't want your supervisor to get away with what she did. But since you can't afford a lawyer, you're screwed - the supervisor will get away with it, and you won't get crap except for how your career and health were wrongly harmed by her.

But wait! The union can represent you - that's a big part of what they do - and they do it for free. They win the case, and you get justice and compensation for what was done to you...and you didn't have to pay a penny but your union dues.

-----------------------------------

The above, btw, was a true story. One of my best friends worked for immigration, and he was (and remains) strongly conservative. The union didn't care that he was a union-bashing conservative - the union did what it does, and he got the justice and compensation he deserved.

What y'all on the Right don't seem to get is that while unions are certainly not perfect, they're often your ONLY defense when the ones you work for screw over your career and your life. Union dues are also not onerous - more than anything, they're analogous to an insurance policy, the assurance that someone will be there to represent you, to be on your side when the company screws you over.

Instead, y'all on the Right have allowed Big Business to convince you that all unions are bad...and so you allow the companies to screw you over time and time and time again (and you'll have NO way to afford a lawyer to represent you in court)...all so you don't have to pay a relative pittance in union dues, 'cause unions are a liberal thing and you think all liberal ideas are bad/evil/terrible.

Click to expand...

I don't mind unions, and in if they can convince me they are good thing to pay dues to, I don't have a problem paying them and continue paying them so long as they provide the services I want or need. What I have a problem with is being forced to pay them to work at a job, regardless if they provide service I want or not. That aint kosher IMO.

Chomsky said:

I'm a bit torn on this, because I'm a strong supporter of unions in the private sector, but not in public service. I hate to see Right to Work expanded even further, but I don't want the unions in our government. I believe public service is a privilege.

Click to expand...

I understand your sentiment, but I used to be a state employee, and saw examples of corruption and sexual harassment. There were limited options for the employees involved absent a union. Unions are, as has been stated, an insurance policy. You don’t need one til you need one. Even employers I investigated knew that. Their saying back in the day was, “anyone (employer) who gets a union, deserves one.”

Nickyjo said:

I understand your sentiment, but I used to be a state employee, and saw examples of corruption and sexual harassment. There were limited options for the employees involved absent a union. Unions are, as has been stated, an insurance policy. You don’t need one til you need one. Even employers I investigated knew that. Their saying back in the day was, “anyone (employer) who gets a union, deserves one.”

Click to expand...

Follow up: compare working conditions and wages in right to work states with other states. I haven’t looked in a while, but could venture a guess what one might come up with. The conservative logic seems to have been: raise min wage, no — unemployment insurance, had idea — OSHA-like regulations, tyranny... but we stand with workers rights when we interfere in the free market to suppress mandatory dues... and by the way, in some cases we’ll even require unions to help employees who don’t pay dues or aren’t members. Solidarity Forever!

Glen Contrarian said:

Picture this: you're a strongly-conservative government worker and you're discriminated against by your supervisor in a way that really affected not just your career, but even your very health. Problem is, you can't sue because you can't afford a lawyer.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can just say this and breeze right by. If people who don't have a lot of money have no ability to sue anyone ever for anything "because they can't afford a lawyer," then we have a much greater problem in this society than anything related to just labor standards, because it means we don't even have a basic functioning legal system. In which case we should drop this topic and address the national emergency that exists if only wealthy people can ever actually sue anyone. Or we can be honest, and continue the topic.

What do you do? Sure, you can quit... but you've got nearly twenty years on the job and you don't want to lose your career... but you also don't want your supervisor to get away with what she did. But since you can't afford a lawyer, you're screwed - the supervisor will get away with it, and you won't get crap except for how your career and health were wrongly harmed by her.

Click to expand...

These imaginary bunny trails are not convincing. Why do we have any labor laws at all? After all, employers can just violate the law and there will be no consequence, according to your off the cuff analysis.

What y'all on the Right don't seem to get is that while unions are certainly not perfect,

Click to expand...

I don't know why union apologists always say this, "they're not perfect." No one is criticizing them for lack of perfection. They're being criticized because they rely on coercion to exist. That is not a failure to be perfect. That is a failure to be even remotely ethical.

they're often your ONLY defense when the ones you work for screw over your career and your life.

Click to expand...

Unions predominate in the public sector, which is the sector this topic is about, and where compensation policies are typically very generous to employees as it is. Union apologist generalizations about employers always screwing people and ruining their lives are deeply dishonest, and straight from the union presidents.

Union dues are also not onerous

Click to expand...

I don't care if they're a nickel, there should be zero legal basis for compelling and coercing payment to a political institution like a union.

Instead, y'all on the Right have allowed Big Business

Click to expand...

Big Business? Again, unions don't predominantly operate across the table from Big Business, they operate in the public sector, mainly, across the table from government managers, education administrators, public utilities managers. Union apologists always try to pivot away from public sector union discussions and somehow make it about corporations, big business, the 1%. This is red herring.

to convince you that all unions are bad...

Click to expand...

Do you realize that this topic is about union-friendly Democrats trying to pass laws that make it illegal for PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS to factually inform their own employees of their rights?

That is bad. Very, very bad. "Big Business" didn't convince me of that. I read the law these Democrats are trying to pass, and when a law is passed that makes it illegal to tell someone factually about their rights, I can make up my own mind that that is very bad.

Neomalthusian said:

I don't think you can just say this and breeze right by. If people who don't have a lot of money have no ability to sue anyone ever for anything "because they can't afford a lawyer," then we have a much greater problem in this society than anything related to just labor standards, because it means we don't even have a basic functioning legal system. In which case we should drop this topic and address the national emergency that exists if only wealthy people can ever actually sue anyone. Or we can be honest, and continue the topic.

Click to expand...

I can ignore a the rest, but here's a clue: there's a reason for the old saying, "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." Yes, that's for doctors...but it's for lawyers, too.

When a non-lawyer goes into court facing a real lawyer - and especially a corporate lawyer (for companies) or an assistant attorney general (for the state), the non-lawyer finds out REAL quick that the court is not about right or wrong, but about winning. The non-lawyer soon finds out the hard way that unless he submits evidence in precisely the right way, the evidence won't be allowed. If he doesn't ask questions just the right way, the questions won't be allowed. If he doesn't know all the little legal tricks that the other side can (and will) use, he's going to lose.

And yeah, this is the voice of experience. I'm not referring here to my friend who worked for immigration - a federal matter - but to the business my wife and I had built. We couldn't afford a lawyer - it cost $25K up front, and there was simply no way. And don't forget that not just any lawyer will do, but you must find one that works with your kind of case. But I'd been a Chief Master-at-Arms (the Navy equivalent of a chief of police) back on a Navy ship, and had even been at times the acting legal officer (which is NOT the same thing as a lawyer) and I was very good at conducting investigations, so I represented us - we had no other recourse...

...and I got eaten alive by the Assistant Attorney General representing the state. They knew the state had screwed up, and so did the judge...but because the AAG knew all the little damned courtroom procedures and tricks and legal jiu-jitsu that I didn't, I couldn't get to present the evidence and ask the questions that I knew would prove our case beyond any reasonable doubt.

The proceeding took about 15 months between all the different appearances and motions and depositions and whatnot, and it was the hardest thing I've ever done. I wanted so much to appeal - and I'm confident even now we could have proven our innocence and won the appeal - but the court took a mental and emotional toll that I'm not willing to pay again. I literally had become clinically obsessed with the case - I couldn't not think about it 24/7 unless I was either asleep or physically doing something that required real mental effort. I would have given my left nut for a lawyer to represent us...but we simply couldn't afford it, and I count that 15 months of my life as lost.

The intelligent learn from experience...but the wise learn from other people's experiences. I'm intelligent. I hope that you will be wise and learn from my experience and don't pretend that you don't need a lawyer in court. Sure, you can sue all day long...but unless you truly know what the heck you're doing (like I thought I did given my experience in the Navy), you WILL lose. So you can learn the easy way - from my experience - or you can learn the hard way...and trust me when I say the hard way hurts.

P.S. I should add that for small claims court, you probably wouldn't need a lawyer (since it's just you and the other party arguing before a judge)...but anything above small claims court, if you don't have a lawyer, you're screwed six ways to Sunday.

I think unions are a great thing for workers, but things like prevailing wage and other laws have corrupted their purpose and positions.

PirateMk1 said:

I don't mind unions, and in if they can convince me they are good thing to pay dues to, I don't have a problem paying them and continue paying them so long as they provide the services I want or need. What I have a problem with is being forced to pay them to work at a job, regardless if they provide service I want or not. That aint kosher IMO.

Click to expand...

Okay, picture this: You decide to take a job, and the one who offers you the job says that they're offering free legal advice up to and including being able to represent you in suing the company itself. He doesn't say - but you easily understand - that access to those union lawyers isn't free, but you can also see that you're still getting paid good wages - better, in fact, than those working for the other (non-unionized) company, since employees for unionized companies normally get significantly better pay and benefits than non-unionized companies. Good pay and access to good lawyers, too? Nice deal. A really nice deal!

The only difference between that and the way unions normally work is that in the real world, the unions tell you how much money you're paying for that access to union lawyers. IMO what the unions should do is require the company to offer the benefits they already have in lieu of the next pay raise...but at the same time no longer require dues to be paid.

You see, the problem isn't with the union benefits - y'all love those benefits, too. The problem is with how it's presented since paying union dues is used by Big Business as an excuse to attack the unions.

Glen Contrarian said:

Picture this: you're a strongly-conservative government worker and you're discriminated against by your supervisor in a way that really affected not just your career, but even your very health. Problem is, you can't sue because you can't afford a lawyer.

What do you do? Sure, you can quit...but you've got nearly twenty years on the job and you don't want to lose your career...but you also don't want your supervisor to get away with what she did. But since you can't afford a lawyer, you're screwed - the supervisor will get away with it, and you won't get crap except for how your career and health were wrongly harmed by her.

But wait! The union can represent you - that's a big part of what they do - and they do it for free. They win the case, and you get justice and compensation for what was done to you...and you didn't have to pay a penny but your union dues.

-----------------------------------

The above, btw, was a true story. One of my best friends worked for immigration, and he was (and remains) strongly conservative. The union didn't care that he was a union-bashing conservative - the union did what it does, and he got the justice and compensation he deserved.

What y'all on the Right don't seem to get is that while unions are certainly not perfect, they're often your ONLY defense when the ones you work for screw over your career and your life. Union dues are also not onerous - more than anything, they're analogous to an insurance policy, the assurance that someone will be there to represent you, to be on your side when the company screws you over.

Instead, y'all on the Right have allowed Big Business to convince you that all unions are bad...and so you allow the companies to screw you over time and time and time again (and you'll have NO way to afford a lawyer to represent you in court)...all so you don't have to pay a relative pittance in union dues, 'cause unions are a liberal thing and you think all liberal ideas are bad/evil/terrible.

Click to expand...

I agree they do good things for workers but it should be voluntary. If a person doesn't want to be in a union then they should have to be and shouldn't have to pay union dues. The problem comes down to the union negotiates with the employer the wages and benefits for the workers and a non due paying person would benefit from the negotiation with out helping to pay the people that are negotiating. This is why I advocate for unions to not be in the public sector. In the private sector a person is free to chose to work for a certain company knowing that all their employees have to be in the union and they are free to do work at a different company that's a non union shop. You don't have this flexibility in the public sector often because the work the government does is monopolistic in nature leaving the worker no choice.

jdog21 said:

I agree they do good things for workers but it should be voluntary. If a person doesn't want to be in a union then they should have to be and shouldn't have to pay union dues. The problem comes down to the union negotiates with the employer the wages and benefits for the workers and a non due paying person would benefit from the negotiation with out helping to pay the people that are negotiating. This is why I advocate for unions to not be in the public sector. In the private sector a person is free to chose to work for a certain company knowing that all their employees have to be in the union and they are free to do work at a different company that's a non union shop. You don't have this flexibility in the public sector often because the work the government does is monopolistic in nature leaving the worker no choice.

Click to expand...

If you had your way, then that friend of mine would never have had any real opportunity to get justice for what was done to him - he couldn't have afforded a lawyer, and would have faced a high-powered government lawyer if he'd tried to represent himself...and he would have lost.

Look at the several states' worth of teachers walking out because of their pay being so low they often have to get second jobs in order to make ends meet - they're all red states. In Arizona, the teachers' union is not allowed...which results not only in lower pay (they hadn't had a pay raise in ten years IIRC), but also in larger class sizes and lower education budgets and fewer resources for the support of the children they teach. If they'd had a union, they might have gone on strike anyway, but at least they'd be organized to the point that they'd have an organization that advocated for them and the issues they face. Unfortunately, many - perhaps most - on the Right seem to think that the teachers don't care about the kids. Most teachers love their students and want to go the extra mile to help them...but they don't want to be martyrs just because conservatives want to slash their budgets to the bone.

What's really happening is that a great many in Big Business hate unions because they think the unions cost them so much money...so they buy politicians and pundits and air time on networks to tell everyone how terrible unions are and how terrible liberals are for supporting unions...and so it became canon among the Right that unions are bad/terrible/evil/socialist.

I just wish that the Republicans would go back and read the 1956 GOP party platform under Eisenhower - at that time, the GOP was a strong supporter of unions. That was part of real conservatism. But today's conservatives have forgotten what real conservatism is, even to the point where anyone who ran on the exact same platform as Ronald Reagan would be tarred-and-feathered and run out of town for being too liberal.

Neomalthusian said:

Ahead of a Janus v. AFSCME decision expected to make the entire nation's public sector 'right to work' in June, liberal state legislatures are already working up alternative ways to require public sector workers to contribute to unions even if such coercion is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

For example, in New York, S5778 would make it more difficult for workers to opt out of paying dues.

New Jersey Bill S2137 would severely restrict the window of time within which workers are allowed to exercise their rights to opt out.

Washington HB 2751 would mandate state collection of dues on behalf of public sector unions.

Washington Senate Bill 6082 would prohibit public employers from even informing employees of their right to not pay a union. What kind of demented person tries to make it illegal for an employer to factually notify an employee of his or her rights under the law?

https://www.watchdog.org/national/s...cle_fa248504-3448-11e8-a434-334470fdf4e2.html

Click to expand...

If it weren't for unions and, for that matter, regulation, we'd have barefoot children working in shoe factories. Just like Nike factories in Indonesia.

Neomalthusian said:

Ahead of a Janus v. AFSCME decision expected to make the entire nation's public sector 'right to work' in June, liberal state legislatures are already working up alternative ways to require public sector workers to contribute to unions even if such coercion is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

For example, in New York, S5778 would make it more difficult for workers to opt out of paying dues.

New Jersey Bill S2137 would severely restrict the window of time within which workers are allowed to exercise their rights to opt out.

Washington HB 2751 would mandate state collection of dues on behalf of public sector unions.

Washington Senate Bill 6082 would prohibit public employers from even informing employees of their right to not pay a union. What kind of demented person tries to make it illegal for an employer to factually notify an employee of his or her rights under the law?

https://www.watchdog.org/national/s...cle_fa248504-3448-11e8-a434-334470fdf4e2.html

Click to expand...

I love how republicans frame the argument where corporations are exploiting people, and dems want to fight it, as "worker's rights".

What republicans are actually fighting for is a "worker's right to be exploited" which is consistent with their screw-the-little-guy philosophy.

History reveals that union workers, even after dues, make substantially more than non-union workers, and we're not going to wait around for corporations to "see the light". They see only one thing, more profits for them, less for the little guy. This is what "smaller government" actually means when you translate it into policy, "more for the rich, less for the worker".

We're pulling your covers for the world to see.

Glen Contrarian said:

If you had your way, then that friend of mine would never have had any real opportunity to get justice for what was done to him - he couldn't have afforded a lawyer, and would have faced a high-powered government lawyer if he'd tried to represent himself...and he would have lost.

Look at the several states' worth of teachers walking out because of their pay being so low they often have to get second jobs in order to make ends meet - they're all red states. In Arizona, the teachers' union is not allowed...which results not only in lower pay (they hadn't had a pay raise in ten years IIRC), but also in larger class sizes and lower education budgets and fewer resources for the support of the children they teach. If they'd had a union, they might have gone on strike anyway, but at least they'd be organized to the point that they'd have an organization that advocated for them and the issues they face. Unfortunately, many - perhaps most - on the Right seem to think that the teachers don't care about the kids. Most teachers love their students and want to go the extra mile to help them...but they don't want to be martyrs just because conservatives want to slash their budgets to the bone.

What's really happening is that a great many in Big Business hate unions because they think the unions cost them so much money...so they buy politicians and pundits and air time on networks to tell everyone how terrible unions are and how terrible liberals are for supporting unions...and so it became canon among the Right that unions are bad/terrible/evil/socialist.

I just wish that the Republicans would go back and read the 1956 GOP party platform under Eisenhower - at that time, the GOP was a strong supporter of unions. That was part of real conservatism. But today's conservatives have forgotten what real conservatism is, even to the point where anyone who ran on the exact same platform as Ronald Reagan would be tarred-and-feathered and run out of town for being too liberal.

Click to expand...

While I understand your sentiment I disagree still. Im sure things like what happen to your friend happen all the time to other people as well but every employer and every job could have the same problem and most of the time we don't see it often because businesses have an HR department they while be it they are looking out for the company more then the employee they do handle this same type of situation and its likely that his troubles could have been solved the same way.
On the point of teachers, first Arizona teacher may be getting under paid by your standards but look at this way. Arizona kids are getting better education according to standard testing then such states like NY and CA were there is a bigger union presence for teachers and their the teachers are getting paid way more then they do in AZ. So some how even thou theirs not a union and the teachers get paid less the students are benefiting more, how do you explain that?
Next being a teacher is a public job, the school board for a given area is in charge of their employees wages and if the teachers feel under paid then they can bring their cases to the board and to the parents. The parents in that district get to choose whether or not the teacher for their children deserve raises. How is this not the most democratic way a public official wages are supposed to be governed?

Neomalthusian said:

Ahead of a Janus v. AFSCME decision expected to make the entire nation's public sector 'right to work' in June, liberal state legislatures are already working up alternative ways to require public sector workers to contribute to unions even if such coercion is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

For example, in New York, S5778 would make it more difficult for workers to opt out of paying dues.

New Jersey Bill S2137 would severely restrict the window of time within which workers are allowed to exercise their rights to opt out.

Washington HB 2751 would mandate state collection of dues on behalf of public sector unions.

Washington Senate Bill 6082 would prohibit public employers from even informing employees of their right to not pay a union. What kind of demented person tries to make it illegal for an employer to factually notify an employee of his or her rights under the law?

https://www.watchdog.org/national/s...cle_fa248504-3448-11e8-a434-334470fdf4e2.html

Click to expand...

I worked as an administrator in an agency that employed both union and non-union employees. I often found dealing with union employees was much easier than the nonunion employees. With union employees I had a contract which as long as I and they followed I had little problems. With Nonunion employees, they felt they should be treated special since they weren't the problem children as they saw the union employees to be. I also was involved in union bargaining. I often heard that unions pushed for salaries and benefits beyond what the agency could afford. Maybe i had a special union but I found them to be very professional in their attitudes. Once when the agency was having some financial problems the union offered to hold off on salary increase for 6 months until the financial problems could be solved.

Chomsky said:

I'm a bit torn on this, because I'm a strong supporter of unions in the private sector, but not in public service. I hate to see Right to Work expanded even further, but I don't want the unions in our government. I believe public service is a privilege.

Click to expand...

Wisconsin is a good example of why public employees need unions. When governor Walker took over Wisco he ended public employee unions by eliminating fair share and limiting bargaining to just salaries and even limiting the increase the unions could request. that killed the unions of course. He also required all union employee is pay at least 50% of their retirement and health care costs. This may sound reasonable to most people, but it wasn't . I was involved in bargaining with public employee unions for over 35 years. Most unions had given up pay increases over the years so they would have to pay less of their health insurance and retirement costs. This also helped he local governments as they did not have to pay FICA, Medicare and retirement cost on increased insurance and retirement benefits as they would have had to pay if the same amount would have been strictly salary. So both sides won. In one fell swoop Walker took away years of bargaining from the union employees and took away their right to bargain at the same time. I know one teacher whose wife also taught lost 12 grand of take home pay in the first year. Now our state is having trouble filling teaching positions, do you wonder why?

bluesmoke said:

If it weren't for unions and, for that matter, regulation, we'd have barefoot children working in shoe factories. Just like Nike factories in Indonesia.

Click to expand...

Over 90% of private sector work is not represented by a union, yet there are no shoeless children working our factories. Why? Because of regulations.

OscarLevant said:

I love how republicans frame the argument where corporations are exploiting people, and dems want to fight it, as "worker's rights".

Click to expand...

What made you think this topic has anything whatsoever to do with corporations? This isn’t about corporations. This is about public sector unions and Democrat-run state legislatures trying to preemptively make it illegal to inform employees of their rights.

History reveals that union workers, even after dues, make substantially more than non-union workers

Click to expand...

Of course. Any cartel pushes prices higher by restricting competition.

and we're not going to wait around for corporations to "see the light".

Click to expand...

This isn’t about corporations. Why are you trying to divert the topic to corporations?

independentusa said:

I worked as an administrator in an agency that employed both union and non-union employees. I often found dealing with union employees was much easier than the nonunion employees. With union employees I had a contract which as long as I and they followed I had little problems. With Nonunion employees, they felt they should be treated special since they weren't the problem children as they saw the union employees to be. I also was involved in union bargaining. I often heard that unions pushed for salaries and benefits beyond what the agency could afford. Maybe i had a special union but I found them to be very professional in their attitudes. Once when the agency was having some financial problems the union offered to hold off on salary increase for 6 months until the financial problems could be solved.

Click to expand...

Anecdote noted, but this is about unions and Democrats actively trying to make it as difficult as possible for employees to exercise a right that an anticipated Supreme Court decision will grant them, and one state is even trying to make it illegal to tell employees they have that right.

Neomalthusian said:

Over 90% of private sector work is not represented by a union, yet there are no shoeless children working our factories. Why? Because of regulations.

Click to expand...

If there were not the specific government regulation regarding child labor, but there were the allowance of unions, then there would be a better chance of avoiding such child labor horror. That's why they are called "labor" unions. That is why I mentioned them both. If we had neither...

jdog21 said:

I agree they do good things for workers but it should be voluntary. If a person doesn't want to be in a union then they should have to be and shouldn't have to pay union dues. The problem comes down to the union negotiates with the employer the wages and benefits for the workers and a non due paying person would benefit from the negotiation with out helping to pay the people that are negotiating. This is why I advocate for unions to not be in the public sector. In the private sector a person is free to chose to work for a certain company knowing that all their employees have to be in the union and they are free to do work at a different company that's a non union shop. You don't have this flexibility in the public sector often because the work the government does is monopolistic in nature leaving the worker no choice.

Click to expand...

There is problem with your argument in that the Federal Law requires the union to represent you whether you belong to the union or not, as long as you are in a position covered by the union contract. So you are basically saying you want something for nothing. As an administrator I can't count the times the unions I worked with had to support a person who not only not belonged to the union, but decried the fact that they had to pay fair share dues. It seemed the union was their enemy until they needed the union and then they were complaining the union could not do enough for them.

bluesmoke said:

If there were not the specific government regulation regarding child labor, but there were the allowance of unions, then there would be a better chance of avoiding such child labor horror.

Click to expand...

Completely nonsensical. Over 90% of private sector work is not in the union, there is no child labor problem. Why? Laws.