right to work laws

[Peter the Lefty]

Don't support (not pro-plutocrat)

[barfbag]

Look I'm all for someone not being forced to join a union. Union leaders showing up at people's houses, sitting with employees at lunch, following workers into the restroom, it's terrible for the economy. Anyone who wants to be in a union should be allowed to join and anyone who doesn't want to be in one shouldn't have to abide by the 50% +1 rule. What I'm against is non-union employees having the same benefits negotiated by the union. That's completely up to the unions though as to whether or not they want to allow non-union members having the same benefits as those in the union who worked to negotiate the benefits. There's good news and bad news with unions. Sometimes they're needed and sometimes they only cause trouble.

[Indy Texas]

Look I'm all for someone not being forced to join a union. Union leaders showing up at people's houses, sitting with employees at lunch, following workers into the restroom, it's terrible for the economy. Anyone who wants to be in a union should be allowed to join and anyone who doesn't want to be in one shouldn't have to abide by the 50% +1 rule. What I'm against is non-union employees having the same benefits negotiated by the union. That's completely up to the unions though as to whether or not they want to allow non-union members having the same benefits as those in the union who worked to negotiate the benefits. There's good news and bad news with unions. Sometimes they're needed and sometimes they only cause trouble.

If we're talking about pay and benefits, that's possible. But suppose a given factory has no air conditioning or proper ventilation and people are fainting from the heat so the union wants to demand the owners install air conditioning. How are you supposed to prevent the non-union workers from benefiting from that? Construct a separate, non-air conditioned building for them?

As for the benefits themselves, if the value of the additional benefits the union is securing for the employees exceeds the dues that the non-union member would pay to join, I fail to see how any rational person wouldn't want to join unless they wanted to act as a free rider. Unless you're Krazen and you see virtue in working as much as possible for as little as possible.

[barfbag]

Look I'm all for someone not being forced to join a union. Union leaders showing up at people's houses, sitting with employees at lunch, following workers into the restroom, it's terrible for the economy. Anyone who wants to be in a union should be allowed to join and anyone who doesn't want to be in one shouldn't have to abide by the 50% +1 rule. What I'm against is non-union employees having the same benefits negotiated by the union. That's completely up to the unions though as to whether or not they want to allow non-union members having the same benefits as those in the union who worked to negotiate the benefits. There's good news and bad news with unions. Sometimes they're needed and sometimes they only cause trouble.

If we're talking about pay and benefits, that's possible. But suppose a given factory has no air conditioning or proper ventilation and people are fainting from the heat so the union wants to demand the owners install air conditioning. How are you supposed to prevent the non-union workers from benefiting from that? Construct a separate, non-air conditioned building for them?

As for the benefits themselves, if the value of the additional benefits the union is securing for the employees exceeds the dues that the non-union member would pay to join, I fail to see how any rational person wouldn't want to join unless they wanted to act as a free rider. Unless you're Krazen and you see virtue in working as much as possible for as little as possible.

No there's no way around having access to air conditioning. Obviously the same could be said for time off for example if the union decides every year on this day the factory will have a picnic. Do you see what I'm saying about pay and benefits though? For me it would depend on the dues in comparison to the benefits. All I'm against is someone having to be in a union in order to work somewhere. I consider myself a centrist on unions.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Don't support as I'm not a right wing Democrat.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Oppose.

When did this forum become so right-wing?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Oppose.  They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... a non-starter for me personally concerning ANY policy. 

[WalterMitty]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

[politicallefty]

I vehemently oppose these laws. It's simply the right to work for less and with little or no benefits. If we had enough laws and programs in place to protect and benefit workers in this country, perhaps unions wouldn't be as vital. Unions are primarily only as necessary as the lack of laws benefiting the middle/working class. So long as unions continue to decline, the average working American will continue to be screwed over by the rich.

[TNF]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

Yes, if you are anti-slavery.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

Walter, I'm vehemently pro-union. 

[WalterMitty]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

Walter, I'm vehemently pro-union. 

hopefully one day you will get over that.

[WalterMitty]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

Yes, if you are anti-slavery.

oh that is cute.

just one question:  do you not get paid for your work?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

Walter, I'm vehemently pro-union. 

hopefully one day you will get over that.

I don't see him becoming a right-wing Democrat.

[Redalgo]

. . . suppose a given factory has no air conditioning or proper ventilation and people are fainting from the heat so the union wants to demand the owners install air conditioning. How are you supposed to prevent the non-union workers from benefiting from that? Construct a separate, non-air conditioned building for them?

As for the benefits themselves, if the value of the additional benefits the union is securing for the employees exceeds the dues that the non-union member would pay to join, I fail to see how any rational person wouldn't want to join unless they wanted to act as a free rider. . .

I see where you are going with this but do not emphasize the same priorities in my appraisal of the issue. It is not uncommon for interest groups to bring about unintentional outcomes in the wake of actions aimed at achieving their own respective goals. It is unimportant to me if some workers get the benefits of climate control at work without paying union dues. What is of concern to me is whether workers are harmed or cheated of fair, abundant access to opportunities for personal development without consent.

The workplace is a competitive arena with contests underway for control of capital. Just as I would oppose any requirement for a voter or candidate for public office to join, pay dues to, or obey the leadership's instructions from within a political party in order for them to partake in government, I likewise oppose any requirement for a worker or manager to join, pay dues to, or adhere to the bylaws of a labour union or chamber of commerce. That of course is not to say I fail to see the value of unions, or even collective bargaining for that matter, but I will not force individuals to yield powers to or bow before authority figures when they would like to peaceably make their own decisions - those decisions in this case pertaining to bargaining on a one-on-one basis, in small groups with fellow independent workers in fleetingly temporary alliances, or alternative unions instead of through one union.

Right to work laws also seem very important to me when it comes to cooperativization of the economy. If firms become owned and controlled by their workers but workers are all part of a union, that union could effectively monopolize power over entire firms or economic sectors. Folks ought to have the option of going it alone, or organizing other unions so that there is always some measure of pitched competition for influence over firms and varied sorts of capital. It is my concern unions have just as much latent potential to subjugate the interests of or abuse the People as any other interest group, so to me it appears that right to work policies have a rightful place among others I think should be part of a new system of checks and balances - of a greatly reformed system of accountability designed with the protection of individual rights in mind.

But perhaps there are still some strong points of argument out there I am not aware of yet? O.o

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't think people's right to work is in need of a law, so oppose.

[LastVoter]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

So you think capital should have even more power? It should be abolished, not given a monopoly on power.

[LastVoter]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

Yes, if you are anti-slavery.

oh that is cute.

just one question:  do you not get paid for your work?

Slaves get paid for their work in food & shelter. Nobody gets paid for their work fairly these days WM, so it is effectively slavery.

[TNF]

They effectively limit bargaining power of unions... 

that is a bad thing?

Yes, if you are anti-slavery.

oh that is cute.

just one question:  do you not get paid for your work?

Slaves get paid for their work in food & shelter. Nobody gets paid for their work fairly these days WM, so it is effectively slavery.

[Leftbehind]

But perhaps there are still some strong points of argument out there I am not aware of yet? O.o

The distinct absence of worker's control, or any attempts at it?

[WalterMitty]

Working at mcdonalds seems to be more attractive than being a slave. 

[Redalgo]

But perhaps there are still some strong points of argument out there I am not aware of yet? O.o

The distinct absence of worker's control, or any attempts at it?

To be pragmatic I do not support right to work laws as a standalone change. That is also true of my positions for abolishing the minimum wage, dismantling social security, pursuing free trade agreements, and so on. In absence of socialism there would be few circumstances under which I would actively call for such changes. My general appearance of market-friendliness is a little misleading that way; it is completely conditional on first getting what I want in the way of expanded social rights, greater actionable freedom, and more representative institutions for everyone.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Working at mcdonalds seems to be more attractive than being a slave. 

Certainly better than those who had to pick cotton, but some of the house slaves did okay, so maybe on par in that case.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Support.

[Leftbehind]

But perhaps there are still some strong points of argument out there I am not aware of yet? O.o

The distinct absence of worker's control, or any attempts at it?

To be pragmatic I do not support right to work laws as a standalone change. That is also true of my positions for abolishing the minimum wage, dismantling social security, pursuing free trade agreements, and so on. In absence of socialism there would be few circumstances under which I would actively call for such changes. My general appearance of market-friendliness is a little misleading that way; it is completely conditional on first getting what I want in the way of expanded social rights, greater actionable freedom, and more representative institutions for everyone.

That's fair enough - worker's control is a game-changer. So we're left at the only people supporting this are right-wingers to a man.