• 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!

A right to NOT join a union?

Do you have a right to NOT join a union


  • Total voters
    61
And Virginia, a "right to work" state, is like 7th.

Not that it matters, since once again, you are relating two things that have nothing to do with each other.

The five states with the highest per capita income are all non-right to work states. Again this does not show that right to work laws decrease per capita income. However, it does show that the states with the highest per capita income also give unions significant protections.
 
Unions are the reason for the increased productivity? Am I reading that right?
 
Everyone everywhere has the right not to join a Union. No one anywhere should have a "right" to employment of any kind. People who want to work without joining a Union need to find an employer who will hire them, or need to start their own business. I don't quite see where the issue lies. Is the government seriously going to step in and force a company to hire a non-union member?

If the company has made a contract with a Union that they will only hire Union members, then you have to join the union to work for that company.
 
Sweden in 85% unionized and has one of the highest standards of living in the World...above that of the USA.
Can you show that the high union participation is the cause of that high standard of living?
 
Everyone everywhere has the right not to join a Union. No one anywhere should have a "right" to employment of any kind. People who want to work without joining a Union need to find an employer who will hire them, or need to start their own business. I don't quite see where the issue lies. Is the government seriously going to step in and force a company to hire a non-union member?

If the company has made a contract with a Union that they will only hire Union members, then you have to join the union to work for that company.

An American citizen has the same right not to join a union as they do to join a union. What's next? The mark of the beast?
 
Well, if you wanna be a pathetic scab of a man and refuse to fight alongside your brothers in the quite necessary struggle to maintain even the most basic protections of the working class, that's fine.

You're free to be a pathetic scab, to grovel at the feet of the owners under the assumption that you're special, that you someday will get to be the oppressor rather than the oppressed as a reward for being such a good dog.

Since the 70's we've been in a state of absolute regression. Workers get a worse and worse deal. We get paid less to do more work. We're buried in debt up to our eyeballs. Our benefits and pensions are disappearing. If you're a production worker and you still think that production workers have it too easy, and that the owners have it too rough, that they need help to get another jet, I guess by your conscience you should refuse to be in a union. Can't hold that against you.

Of course, if some of your comrades characterize you as a pathetic scab bastard because of your decision, shun you in the workplace or do pretty much whatever else to voice their displeasure with you, well, I couldn't hold that against them either. Fair is fair.
 
Well, if you wanna be a pathetic scab of a man...
The venerable ad-hom, the bastion from which those that have nothing to say proudly do so.

Beyond that, this is just another example how liberals are the champion of 'choice", so long as it is a choice they approve of.
 
Well, if you wanna be a pathetic scab of a man and refuse to fight alongside your brothers in the quite necessary struggle to maintain even the most basic protections of the working class, that's fine.

You're free to be a pathetic scab, to grovel at the feet of the owners under the assumption that you're special, that you someday will get to be the oppressor rather than the oppressed as a reward for being such a good dog.

Since the 70's we've been in a state of absolute regression. Workers get a worse and worse deal. We get paid less to do more work. We're buried in debt up to our eyeballs. Our benefits and pensions are disappearing. If you're a production worker and you still think that production workers have it too easy, and that the owners have it too rough, that they need help to get another jet, I guess by your conscience you should refuse to be in a union. Can't hold that against you.

Of course, if some of your comrades characterize you as a pathetic scab bastard because of your decision, shun you in the workplace or do pretty much whatever else to voice their displeasure with you, well, I couldn't hold that against them either. Fair is fair.

You mean the union thugs won't be my friends!? Oh, woe is me!
 
I won't vote because this question is meaningless in a vacuum. If a company hires a UNION shop and has a contract with them, and you want to work for that company, no, you do not have a right to not join because that's a breach of contract on the company's part by choosing to hire you.

On the other hand, if you just mean you're joe-schmoe regular and a union is formed where you work, you have every right not to join, nor could the company fire you for not joining. It's all a question of whether or not there is an existing contract.
 
Here in SD we're a "right to work" state because we recognize a person's right to earn a living is far greater than the unions right to regulate the work environment.

Personal freedom FTW :2wave:
We have RTW in Idaho which is in no danger of being repealed. Our cost of living is lower and our economy tends to fare better than elsewhere. As long as unions force you to support their political candidates and causes with your dues, RTW will not only continue, but increase.
 
We have RTW in Idaho which is in no danger of being repealed. Our cost of living is lower and our economy tends to fare better than elsewhere. As long as unions force you to support their political candidates and causes with your dues, RTW will not only continue, but increase.

What's the average salary where you are? Not an accusatory question, just curious.
 
What's the average salary where you are? Not an accusatory question, just curious.

34th in per Capita Income.

When are the benefits of thes right wing policies going to kick in?

I mean it's been over 200 years now and Blue States are still out pacing you in income, education, divorce rates, teenage births, etc.
 
What's the average salary where you are? Not an accusatory question, just curious.
I'm not sure, but it is lower than many other places. But our cost of living is also much lower. Drive around Boise sometime and try to find a ghetto or a slum.
 
I mean it's been over 200 years now and Blue States are still out pacing you in income, education, divorce rates, teenage births, etc.

So, if red states were 95% white, like most of the blue states you're talking about, we would be much better off?
 
34th in per Capita Income.

When are the benefits of thes right wing policies going to kick in?

What's the cost of living in Idaho?

I mean it's been over 200 years now and Blue States are still out pacing you in income, education, divorce rates, teenage births, etc.

The Blue States are also the best at going bankrupt.
 
I'm not sure, but it is lower than many other places. But our cost of living is also much lower. Drive around Boise sometime and try to find a ghetto or a slum.

Interesting.

I'll admit I'm biased. I'm in a union that has already gotten me more money straight-up than I'll ever pay them in dues (two lawsuits on unrelated issues that both resulted in large cash settlements to their members) so it's hard for me to feel disincentivized towards union membership.

That being said, how would my wages go up exactly without them? It would open the field to more potential employees and increase the supply of cheap labor to my employer while diminishing said employer's incentive to provide benefits.
 
Like I said, find me a real "ghetto" in Boise. The quality of life here is such that we have mass migration here especially from California. The per-capita income in California is much higher. People don't hate living here, and right to work has never been repealed-and won't be. If for no other reason, we in Idaho are very independant minded, especially when it comes to being forced to pay for someone else's politics. People here don't like being told what political causes they must support with their union dues. That alone will keep this state free.
 
That being said, how would my wages go up exactly without them?
Your wages would depend on your job performance and the labor market.
Are you afraid you can't compete?
 
Your wages would depend on your job performance and the labor market.
Are you afraid you can't compete?

Not in the slightest, but studies show that hard work and skill are often far less linked to unregulated pay than one's ability to schmooze and ask for what one wants effectively. I don't like the idea of a guy who does the same job as me being able to just talk his way into a greater compensation without doing anything better.

And my point is that de-unionizing opens the labor market such that it would make conditions indisputably less favorable for most workers. How would that ever be to their benefit?
 
Not in the slightest, but studies show that hard work and skill are often far less linked to unregulated pay than one's ability to schmooze and ask for what one wants effectively. I don't like the idea of a guy who does the same job as me being able to just talk his way into a greater compensation without doing anything better.
Do you like getting paid the same as the guy who slacks off and owes his same-as-you wage and benefits package to the mere fact that you and he are in a union?

And my point is that de-unionizing opens the labor market such that it would make conditions indisputably less favorable for most workers. How would that ever be to their benefit?
It would be less favorable to the slackers and more favorable to the skilled and motivated - as it should be.
 
Do you like getting paid the same as the guy who slacks off and owes his same-as-you wage and benefits package to the mere fact that you and he are in a union?


It would be less favorable to the slackers and more favorable to the skilled and motivated - as it should be.
....and less favorable for those that would force you to support political causes and campaigns you oppose.
 
....and less favorable for those that would force you to support political causes and campaigns you oppose.
Well, sure -- unions are interested in getting the best deal that they can (that is, the most compensation for the least work) for their memebers in as much as doing so gives them the opportunity to gain and retain as much political power as possible.
 
Do you like getting paid the same as the guy who slacks off and owes his same-as-you wage and benefits package to the mere fact that you and he are in a union?

Why would I care? Both from the selfish perspective of "I'm getting more money" and from the utilitarian perspective of "we're protecting each other" I have no reason to complain.

What's more, if someone is being a real dick, I'm allowed to redress the issue THROUGH the union. It can be my tool, and I have far more influence as a union member than I do as an employee, particularly for an organization as large as the one that employs me.

It would be less favorable to the slackers and more favorable to the skilled and motivated - as it should be.

There's an illusion in this country that must be dispelled. While success is rare WITHOUT hard work, this does not mean that the inverse is true. Hard work does not always equal success, and does not mean you'll end up better than parasites, whether they're protected by the policies conservatives support or the policies liberals support.

As a rule, I'm far more comfortable supporting ten barely employable slackers for the protection it afford 90 hard workers than I am supporting ONE Paris Hilton at the expense of 99 hard workers.

And again, in both circumstances, schmooze has far more to do with success than effort.
 
Well, sure -- unions are interested in getting the best deal that they can (that is, the most compensation for the least work) for their memebers in as much as doing so gives them the opportunity to gain and retain as much political power as possible.

They also set the possibility for a minimum standard to exist. In a non-union environment, even if every worker busts their ass, the employer can just dump more work on them and keep raising their standards for raises to urnealistic levels (look at commissioned retail employment; the bar always raises on sales.)

With a union, you can realistically get together with your boss and determine, definitively, just what a days work SHOULD consist of. There is no great moral evil in that. Work can and should be demanding and challenging, but it shouldn't be increased in volume just on some vague principle about work ethic.
 
Back
Top Bottom