Right to Work States

Jason P

inmytree wrote:

Jason P wrote:

inmytree wrote:

not sure about the union dues thing, but my understanding of a "right to work" state is that employers in "right to work" states can fire your ass without reason...

as for the union thing, if one reaping the benefits brought about by the Union, they should pay there fair share, which here means: dues....

as for the taxpayer thing, if one reaping the benefits brought about by the Federal Government, they should pay there fair share, which here means: taxes....

:think:

I guess everything is equal and the same, it's amusing how you feel taxes and union dues are exactly the same...anyhoo, so you finally agree to raise taxes on the wealthy...for once we agree...

oh wait, I'm guessing you're talking about those who make 8 bucks an hour...fine, raise taxes on them, all problems will be solved... :eh:

My point is that if someone is just starting off in the union while also starting a home / family, why should he have to incur equal cost that someone who is a few years off from retiring and has their home / family paid off? Shouldn't the more senior employee who has a life savings and pension pay double-dues to make it more fair for the younger employee?

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

you know best...unions = $10 beer...

Hell yeah, and if you want cheaper beer gotta get rid of the unions!!!!

inmytree

Jason P wrote:

My point is that if someone is just starting off in the union while also starting a home / family, why should he have to incur equal cost that someone who is a few years off from retiring and has their home / family paid off? Shouldn't the more senior employee who has a life savings and pension pay double-dues to make it more fair for the younger employee?

you have a lot of assumptions about older workers...and new workers...

and no, when that new employee is an old employee they will be still paying the same as new employees...it all works out in the end...

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

you know best...unions = $10 beer...

Hell yeah, and if you want cheaper beer gotta get rid of the unions!!!!

those damn unions....

Jason P

inmytree wrote:

Jason P wrote:

My point is that if someone is just starting off in the union while also starting a home / family, why should he have to incur equal cost that someone who is a few years off from retiring and has their home / family paid off? Shouldn't the more senior employee who has a life savings and pension pay double-dues to make it more fair for the younger employee?

you have a lot of assumptions about older workers...and new workers...

and no, when that new employee is an old employee they will be still paying the same as new employees...it all works out in the end...

Just as you have assumptions of people classified as wealthy.

You can assume people making $200K are riding around in yachts or assume that one bad year could cost them all their assets and everything they worked for.

You can assume that the factory / plant the worker is in will still be in operation in 40 years or you can assume a bad economy forces its doors to close in three years.

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

On the other hand, why should you be forced to join a union to get a job?


I work in a union manufacturing plant in a right to work state. It works pretty good with only about 48-52% due paying members. Sure their is some animosity at times. But all in all, it allows people to get jobs and then decide themselves if they want to join the union.

Are the rules at work set by collective bargaining?

Does the union set aside pension for you? Healthcare?

What are the differences?

cincybearcat

Jason P wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

On the other hand, why should you be forced to join a union to get a job?


I work in a union manufacturing plant in a right to work state. It works pretty good with only about 48-52% due paying members. Sure their is some animosity at times. But all in all, it allows people to get jobs and then decide themselves if they want to join the union.

Are the rules at work set by collective bargaining?

Does the union set aside pension for you? Healthcare?

What are the differences?

Well, I'm in management.

But yes the rules of the workplace are set through collective bargaining that applies to all hourly employees whether or not they are due paying members.

No, the union has no pension plan. The company has a terrific profit sharing plan that was recently agreed to with the union during collective bargaining (previously it only applied to salaried staff).

I'm not sure what all, if any, other benefits of the union there are. I'm guessing there is some strike protection for due paying members only.

It is funny though because you know exactly who is a due paying member and who isn't when something happens (safety incident, etc.). Due paying members have union stewards that fight for their right to do dumb stuff and get themselves or others hurt. Non-due paying member have a union steward there, but they are generally fighting for harsher "punishments". It is humorous. Because the actual incident has no impact, it's all about who pays dues and who doesn't.

inmytree

Jason P wrote:

inmytree wrote:

Jason P wrote:

My point is that if someone is just starting off in the union while also starting a home / family, why should he have to incur equal cost that someone who is a few years off from retiring and has their home / family paid off? Shouldn't the more senior employee who has a life savings and pension pay double-dues to make it more fair for the younger employee?

you have a lot of assumptions about older workers...and new workers...

and no, when that new employee is an old employee they will be still paying the same as new employees...it all works out in the end...

Just as you have assumptions of people classified as wealthy.

You can assume people making $200K are riding around in yachts or assume that one bad year could cost them all their assets and everything they worked for.

You can assume that the factory / plant the worker is in will still be in operation in 40 years or you can assume a bad economy forces its doors to close in three years.

what. the. hell. are you babbling about...? you're the one who brought up older vs. young workers...

anyway, I guess you may be right...those making 200K+ are having a terrible time and should be pitied and protected....those poor, poor people...

oh wait, that should be "those wealthy, wealthy people"...

Jason P

inmytree wrote:

what. the. hell. are you babbling about...? you're the one who brought up older vs. young workers...

anyway, I guess you may be right...those making 200K+ are having a terrible time and should be pitied and protected....those poor, poor people...

oh wait, that should be "those wealthy, wealthy people"...

I was babbling about tarnation.

Regardless of pitying the poor or rich, once the rich pay their fair share and the deficit keeps increasing, I'm next in line to get taxed and I won't have rich, straight, white, males going to bat for me. Whitey is more or less my offensive line against taxes. And increased taxes we shall receive. It is very, very, very, very, very clear to me that our government cannot cut the budget.

Jason P

The Indiana state senate has passed the right-to-work bill in a "hearing" and it is moving forward to a vote from the full house for approval.

Democrats have protested by leaving the floor four times in the last two weeks, but so far the Republicans have kept moving forward. The republicans in the senate did not allow debate or amendments before approving it for a full vote, thus it was a "hearing" in name only. This is not typical but allowed. The reason they did this was because any amendments send the approval process back to square one. Of course, the democrats were not too happy and walked out.

It is my opinion that the republicans are bypassing the democratic process. In the same token, the democrats leaving the state last year shut down the entire democratic process. Overall, it's ugly politics.

I believe the only reason the democrats are not hiding in Illinois right now is because stiff penalties were approved last year to stop the tactic of leaving indefinitely. They don't have the votes to stop the bill, so ultimately it will be passed.

Another reason the republicans are fast-tracking the bill is to avoid an ugly scene during Super Bowl weekend, which is in Indy this year. If they don't pass it by then, things should get very interesting downtown.

Godfather.

a good strong ...fair and honest union is really a good thing for the worker,usally a union worker earns more money per hour then the non union worker and has a better benefit package, all thing's concidred working union is a good deal,it has it's ups and downs but in the end your better off.

Godfather.

Jason P

I'm interested to see what effect this will have on the construction trades. Let's say a general contractor is tied to the unions. If it's right to work, then they can hire non-union people too?

Godfather.

Jason P wrote:

I'm interested to see what effect this will have on the construction trades. Let's say a general contractor is tied to the unions. If it's right to work, then they can hire non-union people too?

no usally a compony signs a contract with a union but that contractor can hire non union subcontractors.. the carpenters may be union but the plummers and concrete workers may be non union, then there is the open shop deal where a plant may have gone non union and no longer hire union workers but still retain the union workers thay already have it's a way of phasing out the union workers and their union contract which could take years or just go non union all together and re-hire the union workers into non union status if the worker is willing to take that job in a non union capisity.

Godfather.

Jason P

Indiana is now officially a Right-to-Work state. Governor Daniels signed the bill this afternoon.

There are three outcomes that I'm waiting to see as result the new bill:

1) If this a political move that is against the will of the people, will the democrats take back over in the next election (based on what I know and see, this is unlikely)

2) Will this bring more businesses to Indiana or will wages fall?

3) Will Unions step up their services to the worker now that the workers are not forced to pay them?

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

Indiana is now officially a Right-to-Work state. Governor Daniels signed the bill this afternoon.

There are three outcomes that I'm waiting to see as result the new bill:

1) If this a political move that is against the will of the people, will the democrats take back over in the next election (based on what I know and see, this is unlikely)

2) Will this bring more businesses to Indiana or will wages fall?

3) Will Unions step up their services to the worker now that the workers are not forced to pay them?

that is very interesting. I hope #3 comes true. It is a pretty good litmus test for the sustainability of unions. If they truly offer protections they should not have a problem.

know1

There are 2 issues for me here.

1. I despise Unions. I think the only thing they do is speed up sending jobs overseas.
2. I despise the government telling businesses what they can and can't do. If people want to work there, they will. If they don't, they won't.