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?
Where do you stand on this important issue and why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Basically a person has a right to work without union representation.
Where do you stand on this important issue and why?
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.
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!
Many years ago unions performed a necessary service for the employees but they have long ago outlived out their usefulness.
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.
...
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.
Because employers should be able to hire and fire whoever they like, unless unions are involved.
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.
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©.