You have no right to work.....

anatta said:
you would have to give an ex .. I do not know exactly what you refer to.
My previous posts were to Clinton's promises to get rid of right to work states ( the OP)..

My job ( a white collar independent contractor ) exists in part because my state does not require unemployment benefits-
being contributed by my contractor.
It's an odd situation, but just like health care is not given to me, or SSA contributions -it allows me to get paid
at least 3x what normal call center employees get - I make about $30/hr depending on commissions

I do not want the fed's to interfere in state contractual labor laws -I do not want to work for $10/hr. like many call center employees do.
I make a lot more money because I am in the top 10% of my company's contractees,and they pay on the worth of my sales.

Stay out of it. My company will not hire in many "blue" states because of the cost to acquire actual employess -
instead of ICs
Click to expand...
You don't have a typical job, so it's tough to lump you in with 'brick and mortar' employees. Still, you are screwed the moment you need major medical care. Or will you then hail the big bad govt. when you show up with your hand out?
 
Billy Batts said:
That sounds absurd clarify that claim. The union can only fire people who work directly for the union. Only the employer can fire an employee in a Union shop (with just cause). I never heard of any employer, fire a guy for doing to much work. Union shops generally if not always outproduce non - union shops.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with all of this, but I've never heard of anyone being fired for overproducing. You might not be the most popular guy on the crew because you make others look bad...but firing? I don't buy it.
 
Althea said:
You don't have a typical job, so it's tough to lump you in with 'brick and mortar' employees. Still, you are screwed the moment you need major medical care. Or will you then hail the big bad govt. when you show up with your hand out?
Click to expand...
The real problem is we need a PO at minimum -SP is the desired outcome.. Obamacare is becoming un-afforadable too.
It was a decent first step -but like Bernie was saying it needs to transition away from simple employer based.
Clinton was screeching "only she could reform it" during the primary.
 
anatta said:
The real problem is we need a PO at minimum -SP is the desired outcome.. Obamacare is becoming un-afforadable too.
It was a decent first step -but like Bernie was saying it needs to transition away from simple employer based.
Clinton was screeching "only she could reform it" during the primary.
Click to expand...
Bernie didn't want to reform it. He wanted to push for the same program that failed to pass in Vt.

In truth, Republicans will not allow any changes to be made. They worked to kill it at the state and federal level, and they'll sit back and criticize their own work.

Thankfully, I live in a state that gives a shit about it's constituents. Fla? Not so much.
 
callinectes said:
All I know is, I'm a "non-dues-paying" member of a teacher's union(I had no say in it), and the salary increases they have negotiated have been far out paced by the union dues that I would be paying if I was a dues paying member. Not to mention their political contributions, which almost inevitably end up in the hands of democrats.
Click to expand...

PAC money does not come out of Union dues, it has not since the Beck decision. It is a separate collection of money from members who voluntarily contribute. Not sure how you had no say in becoming a "none paying dues" member, I have never heard of such a thing.
 
Althea said:
The issue, is that they join a union shop, get all the benefits, without paying the dues. Now, if they want to accept lower pay and no bennies, I think they should have that right.

Their argument is that they don't agree with their dues going to fund politicians that they don't support. A valid argument, but they should 'have the right' to be subjected to predatory employment terms.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that....

the union doesn't PAY the employee, nor provide 'bennies', nor anything else....all these are paid for by the company....

the only money that passes through a union is the workers dues paid in and contributions to the DNC paid out.....money left over is for union officials parties and trips
 
NOVA said:
The unions controls your right to work....

and some fools thought the right to work was a 'god-given' right
Click to expand...

That person would be foolish, what would happen in any workplace where the employer told the employee he was terminated, could the employee exercise his "God given right to work" and stay on the job? It is ridiculous to believe you have a God given "right to work".
 
Last edited:
Billy Batts said:
That person would be foolish, what would happen in any workplace where the employer told the employee he was terminated, could the employee exercise his "God given right to work" and stay on the job? It is ridiculous to believe you have a God given "right to work".
Click to expand...

Didn't you know the employer has 'god given' rights too.....

When you call a lawn service, a plumber, a man to clean you oil burner, any one to do work for you, don't YOU seek the best work for the LOWEST PRICE ?

Why do you expect less from an employer...
 
NOVA said:
Been there, done that....

the union doesn't PAY the employee, nor provide 'bennies', nor anything else....all these are paid for by the company....

the only money that passes through a union is the workers dues paid in and contributions to the DNC paid out.....money left over is for union officials parties and trips
Click to expand...

No the union bargains terms and conditions of employment with the employer. The union is you and your co-workers, the Union did not just magically appear they were voted in by the employees, and they can be voted out. And no your dues does not go toward political candidates, all PAC money is contributed separate from dues. You don't know what you are talking about if you believe otherwise.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Didn't you know the employer has 'god given' rights too.....

When you call a lawn service, a plumber, a man to clean you oil burner, any one to do work for you, don't YOU seek the best work for the LOWEST PRICE ?

Why do you expect less from an employer...
Click to expand...

If the employer has a God given right to fire you, then you obviously you do not have a right to work. If I call an electrician or plumber, I am not asking if the employees are covered under a Collective bargaining agreement. The employer can hire non-union employees, and the employees have a right to form or join a union if they choose, that is your right, but even that is not a right to work. If the tradesmen you noted had a right to work, they could just show up at my home and exercise their right, and I would have to pay them whether I called them or not.
 
Last edited:
Right to work, is a misleadingly named right-to-work laws do not, as Baggers assume, entail any guarantee of employment for people ready and willing to go to work. Right-to-work laws only make it harder for workers’ organizations to sustain themselves financially, state right-to-work laws goal is to undermine unions’ bargaining strength. Because right-to-work laws lower wages and benefits, weaken workplace protections, and decrease the likelihood that employers will be required to negotiate with their employees. Right to work laws are advanced as a strategy for attracting new businesses to a state. But that is seldom the case, and states with these laws usually have to hand over a bundle of Tax concessions,and direct payment to employers to entice them in their states.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
the only money that passes through a union is the workers dues paid in and contributions to the DNC paid out.....money left over is for union officials parties and trips
Click to expand...

Bullshit! CWA v. Beck: Unions Cannot Force Non-Members To Pay Dues For Political Action. In the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Communications Workers v. Beck, the majority found that the Communications Workers of America (CWA) could not charge non-members in work places they organize fees that paid for political action by the union. [U.S. Supreme Court,CWA v. Beck, 6/29/88]

Locke v. Karass: Non-Union Workers At Organized Work Places Cannot Be Forced To Pay For "Political, Public Relations, Or Lobbying" Activities By Unions. In a 2009U.S. Supreme Court decision, the majority, echoing past precedent, reaffirmed that non-union members in work places are only to pay a service fee that equaled to the amount collective bargaining services and contract maintenance services cost. [U.S. Supreme Court, Locke v. Karass, 1/21/09]

Any money paid to union officials is voted on, if you ever attended a union meeting you would know that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Maybe or maybe you got sour grapes cause people won't put up with free loading free riders.
Click to expand...

why do you need a union? We are at full employment according to obama. Right to work doesnt matter when there are more jobs available than people to work them. Companies will be falling all over themselves to retain you.
 
tsuke said:
why do you need a union? We are at full employment according to obama. Right to work doesnt matter when there are more jobs available than people to work them. Companies will be falling all over themselves to retain you.
Click to expand...

That is not true Obama is not claiming 100% employment, this country has never had 100% employment. Even if it did that is no reason not to collectively Bargain for better wages, and improve other terms and conditions of employment. Wages are only one factor in employment.
 
Billy Batts said:
That is not true Obama is not claiming 100% employment, this country has never had 100% employment. Even if it did that is no reason not to collectively Bargain for better wages, and improve other terms and conditions of employment. Wages are only one factor in employment.
Click to expand...

full employment is defined as 5% or less unemployment. In that situation you would not need someone to negotiate for you as all the bargaining power is in the hands of the worker.
 
tsuke said:
full employment is defined as 5% or less unemployment. In that situation you would not need someone to negotiate for you as all the bargaining power is in the hands of the worker.
Click to expand...

Of course that is absurd, full employment gives you very little bargaining power, and it hardly replaces collective bargaining. It is also premised on the fact that you can bargain with the employer directly as a single worker. Unless you hold a job with extremely specific or unique qualifications, that is rarely the case. Also Unions set the bar for wages in their industry, non- union follows that lead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top