• 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
100% Pro-Right-to-Work.

Unions can be a really great thing that can even out the playing field, but no one should be coerced into joining one. Forced association is not free association.
 
I'm against adding extra letters to words.
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I might be inclined to agree, but are unions today required to "represent" non-union employees or is what unions negotiate for their members also required to be applied to non-union workers. I don't see that necessarily as representation, but I do not know the current requirements.
 
I am neither for nor against.

If I am against anything, it would have to do with carefully crafted framing techniques, the origins of which being in various think tanks created by those with a vested interest in shaping public opinion.
 
I find the idea that an employee can be forced to join a specific union to take or keep a job absolutely ridiculous but I'd also suggest the very fact the concept exists suggests much deeper and wider issues surrounding employment over there.
 
I am totally against unions...Most of the people that run them are crooks. Here at Boeing when you get a job you are forced to join a union and pay dues which go in the Fat Cats pockets or to the Democratic Party candidates which you don't support.
 
On this topic I have always found it interesting that those who claim loudest to be "for the workers" are also the keenest on denying them freedom in this respect, or respecting their choice if they disagree.
 
In fact the right to work laws should be more robust. No closed shops and close the loopholes where closed shops are allowed to exist throuh end runs. I shouldn't have to pay ANY dues for a union I neither support nor wish to participate in. The whole argument about representation is a bogus way of saying union representation is mandatory.

If something a union negotiates is vital for all of us, then it should be regulated for ALL of us by law, not individual negotiation.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I might be inclined to agree, but are unions today required to "represent" non-union employees or is what unions negotiate for their members also required to be applied to non-union workers. I don't see that necessarily as representation, but I do not know the current requirements.
Click to expand...

I think it varies from state to state.

In Michigan, unions are required to equally represent all employees in a bargaining unit, regardless of whether they pay dues or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom