• 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!

Missouri voters reject ‘right-to-work’ law in major win for unions

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ork-law-in-major-win-for-unions-idUSKBN1KT1ZM

(Reuters) - Voters in Missouri on Tuesday overwhelmingly decided to strike down a so-called “right-to-work” law barring the collection of fees from private-sector workers who choose not to become union members, a crucial victory for organized labor following a series of setbacks.

Missouri residents voted by a 2-to-1 ratio to defeat the state law, which Republican lawmakers approved last year but had been put on hold pending the ballot referendum. Unions say that because they are required to bargain on behalf of all workers, including non-members, those workers should contribute a fair share of the dues paid by members.
===========================================
A victory against the anti-union Repubs.
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ork-law-in-major-win-for-unions-idUSKBN1KT1ZM

(Reuters) - Voters in Missouri on Tuesday overwhelmingly decided to strike down a so-called “right-to-work” law barring the collection of fees from private-sector workers who choose not to become union members, a crucial victory for organized labor following a series of setbacks.

Missouri residents voted by a 2-to-1 ratio to defeat the state law, which Republican lawmakers approved last year but had been put on hold pending the ballot referendum. Unions say that because they are required to bargain on behalf of all workers, including non-members, those workers should contribute a fair share of the dues paid by members.
===========================================
A victory against the anti-union Repubs.

In some respects I think it is a reaction to the overly aggressive union busting that the Republicans and been enabling recently.
 
I’m personally against forcing people to be members of organizations they don’t want to belong to, especially when those organizations use the fees for political activism the individual may not be in favor of. But I don’t have a dog in this fight so if that is what the voters of that state want then best of luck to them.
 
I’m personally against forcing people to be members of organizations they don’t want to belong to, especially when those organizations use the fees for political activism the individual may not be in favor of. But I don’t have a dog in this fight so if that is what the voters of that state want then best of luck to them.

dito .
 
I’m personally against forcing people to be members of organizations they don’t want to belong to, especially when those organizations use the fees for political activism the individual may not be in favor of. But I don’t have a dog in this fight so if that is what the voters of that state want then best of luck to them.

I find it a mixed bag.

On the one hand, you have what you said.

But on the other hand, if the union negotiates a good deal, that deal applies to the bargaining class. That includes people who aren't members of the union.




I'm not sure I have a solid opinion on this, at least as to private market unions.
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ork-law-in-major-win-for-unions-idUSKBN1KT1ZM

(Reuters) - Voters in Missouri on Tuesday overwhelmingly decided to strike down a so-called “right-to-work” law barring the collection of fees from private-sector workers who choose not to become union members, a crucial victory for organized labor following a series of setbacks.

Missouri residents voted by a 2-to-1 ratio to defeat the state law, which Republican lawmakers approved last year but had been put on hold pending the ballot referendum. Unions say that because they are required to bargain on behalf of all workers, including non-members, those workers should contribute a fair share of the dues paid by members.
===========================================
A victory against the anti-union Repubs.

Definitely a shot in the arm for unions.

Right-to-work states make it very difficult to organize since unions are required to carry "freeloaders" (those who pay nothing towards the costs, yet reap the benefits). I remember we had a shop in Miami of 85 members of which 6 were dues paying members of the union. Since non-union members of the bargaining unit cannot vote when it comes time for contracts to be voted upon, each time it became time to vote on the contract, many of them would join up, pay the $2 initiation fee, vote on the contract and then resign. Finally the union got smart, raised the union initiation fee to $1,000 to join. As a result last time i asked, the dues paying membership was up to 46 members since they realized voting on the contract was voting on their futures and they wanted to have a say in it. Brought a smile to me face when I heard about it.
 
I’m personally against forcing people to be members of organizations they don’t want to belong to, especially when those organizations use the fees for political activism the individual may not be in favor of. But I don’t have a dog in this fight so if that is what the voters of that state want then best of luck to them.

Just so you know, under federal law, you cannot be compelled to join any labor union as a condition of employment; however in agency fee payer states, you can be compelled to pay a fee equal to what your dues/fees would be without joining the union. In right-to-work states you do not have to join nor pay any dues/fees.
 
I find it a mixed bag.

On the one hand, you have what you said.

But on the other hand, if the union negotiates a good deal, that deal applies to the bargaining class. That includes people who aren't members of the union.




I'm not sure I have a solid opinion on this, at least as to private market unions.

Yeah, this is one of those issues in which I completely get the reasoning to both sides of the issue and also see the inherent unfairness in both sides. I do prefer that such gray areas are put to a popular vote rather than leaving it to politicians so I am glad the people of Missouri got to have their say. Of course the gamble they are taking is whether businesses will move to states with different rules.
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ork-law-in-major-win-for-unions-idUSKBN1KT1ZM

(Reuters) - Voters in Missouri on Tuesday overwhelmingly decided to strike down a so-called “right-to-work” law barring the collection of fees from private-sector workers who choose not to become union members, a crucial victory for organized labor following a series of setbacks.

Missouri residents voted by a 2-to-1 ratio to defeat the state law, which Republican lawmakers approved last year but had been put on hold pending the ballot referendum. Unions say that because they are required to bargain on behalf of all workers, including non-members, those workers should contribute a fair share of the dues paid by members.
===========================================
A victory against the anti-union Repubs.

Overall, unions and their allies outspent supporters of the law by nearly 5-to-1

7CDxyqa.gif
 
Just so you know, under federal law, you cannot be compelled to join any labor union as a condition of employment; however in agency fee payer states, you can be compelled to pay a fee equal to what your dues/fees would be without joining the union. In right-to-work states you do not have to join nor pay any dues/fees.

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that. Though I personally see that as a distinction without a difference.
 
Missouri voters reject ‘right-to-work’ law in major win for unions

good. i'd be better off with representation, but Republicans have gutted unions in my state. good job Missouri.
 

Another example of unions using their fees to do more than simply negotiating with employers on behalf of employees. The political side of unions is what really bothers me about forcing employees to contribute.
 
Overall, unions and their allies outspent supporters of the law by nearly 5-to-1

What do you think about Citizens United?

What do you think about federalism?

:lol:








Figured.

Ah well, you don't have to post about it. I invite you to reflect in your own mind about the nature of the complaint regarding spending that you made and compare it to thoughts you may or may not have had about Citizens United and complaints Hated Liberals might have made here about it.
 
:lol:








Figured.

Ah well, you don't have to post about it. I invite you to reflect in your own mind about the nature of the complaint regarding spending that you made and compare it to thoughts you may or may not have had about Citizens United and complaints Hated Liberals might have made here about it.

As usual the point went right over your head. Ill try to spell it out plain for you I dont think DP has a crayon font though. We dont allow foreigners to contribute to our federal elections, why should it be acceptable for people from out of state to con tribute to a state level election?
 
As usual the point went right over your head. Ill try to spell it out plain for you I dont think DP has a crayon font though. We dont allow foreigners to contribute to our federal elections, why should it be acceptable for people from out of state to con tribute to a state level election?

Now now, that's the Xth time today you've shifted goalposts when I made the mistake of responding. Please do highlight here where you indicate your complaint is in fact about contributions that cross state lines:




Overall, unions and their allies outspent supporters of the law by nearly 5-to-1
7CDxyqa.gif

What do you think about Citizens United?

What do you think about federalism?

:lol:

Figured.

Ah well, you don't have to post about it. I invite you to reflect in your own mind about the nature of the complaint regarding spending that you made and compare it to thoughts you may or may not have had about Citizens United and complaints Hated Liberals might have made here about it.

I don't see anything in there where you complain about contributions crossing state lines. It would appear you are just playing stupidly dishonest debate board games.









Are you going to change the subject to whether mesculun greens are better than red lettuce or not now?
 
I’m personally against forcing people to be members of organizations they don’t want to belong to, especially when those organizations use the fees for political activism the individual may not be in favor of. But I don’t have a dog in this fight so if that is what the voters of that state want then best of luck to them.

Well, the way I see it, places that do not have 'right to work' laws have a much lower level of poverty than places that do have right to work laws.
 
Another example of unions using their fees to do more than simply negotiating with employers on behalf of employees. The political side of unions is what really bothers me about forcing employees to contribute.

In my union, you cannot be compelled to contribute to any political entity; instead they have a voluntary PAC fund in which monies are donated to politicians who are friendly towards organized labor. Our dues money is primarily used for contract negotiations, contract maintenance, organizing, job related training and college scholarships.
 
Back
Top Bottom