do you support right to work laws

[Deus Naturae]

Ideally, we would have a free labor market in which employers could hire or fire whoever they wished, so long as they did not infringe upon the terms of an employment contract. Employers would also be free to make contracts with employees or employee bargaining units. If labor unions limited their activities to peaceful bargaining, I would support the right of employers to enter into union security agreements.

However, labor unions often employ coercive tactics (organizing sit-ins on an employer's property, preventing shipments from entering or exiting plants, violently assaulting "scabs," etc.) The use of such tactics during labor strikes has given rise to labor laws which require employers to "bargain fairly" with striking workers. In effect, union violence and bullying has terrorized legislators into passing laws that give them an upper hand in the bargaining process, which is especially unfair towards non-union workers.

Until such time as all "fair bargaining" laws have been repealed and coercive actions by labor unions are actually punished, I support right-to-work laws. They are not ideal, but they are certainly better than the current situation in non-RTW States, which is unjust towards non-union workers.

yes, enthusiastically.

And no, I don't support right-to-fire laws

That's a strange term to use, considering that right-to-work laws prevent employers from firing employees for non-membership in a labor organization.

[Deus Naturae]

The whole American system doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand why workers should be forced to join a union if they don't want to and I don't understand why workers should be prevented from joining a union if they want to. Guess that's an issue where Old Europe is more free-market oriented than 'Murica.

Sums up my views perfectly.

My stance is that employees should have the right to decide if they want to form a union, not the business or the state government.  In my mind, it's pretty totalitarian to suggest that a business should have the authority to decide whether or not the employees can form unions and probably violates several amendments of the US Constitution.  Including the freedom of speech and of association.  When we have a more sane composition on the Supreme Court, there needs to be a ruling on this.

Are you talking about public sector unions or something? How can a private business violate the Constitution?

[Deus Naturae]

The whole American system doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand why workers should be forced to join a union if they don't want to and I don't understand why workers should be prevented from joining a union if they want to. Guess that's an issue where Old Europe is more free-market oriented than 'Murica.

Sums up my views perfectly.

My stance is that employees should have the right to decide if they want to form a union, not the business or the state government.  In my mind, it's pretty totalitarian to suggest that a business should have the authority to decide whether or not the employees can form unions and probably violates several amendments of the US Constitution.  Including the freedom of speech and of association.  When we have a more sane composition on the Supreme Court, there needs to be a ruling on this.

Are you talking about public sector unions or something? How can a private business violate the Constitution?

I was more addressing state governments giving power to effectively illegalize unions.  Which is what happens when a business decides "no you can't do that" and thus have state decree saying as much.

What decrees are you referring to? What do you mean by "illegalize unions?"

[Deus Naturae]

Hell no! While everyone should want to join a union in the first place because who doesn't want higher pay and better benefits, and those that refuse to join the union still get the benefits of the union. I think that if you opt out, you should make minimum wage and get no benefits and no time off, while the union members earn $22.50 an hour, full-time, good health benefits, and paid vacation.

The benefits union workers receive depends on union-management negotiations. If labor unions want to negotiate for high wages and extensive benefits, that's their choice. If they want to exclude non-union workers from those goals, that's also their choice. But as long as Federal labor laws grant them special privileges in the bargaining process, State governments should make it so that employers have the choice to hire non-union workers who don't use government privileges to advance their negotiating position, and so that non-union workers aren't pushed out of the workforce as a result of union security contracts negotiated through a Federally manipulated bargaining process.

[Deus Naturae]

Unions are not inherently more virtuous than management, and in the public sector they're  basically run by comic book villains. But they serve a function and, on the whole, almost all of us are better off for it. I don't understand why anyone would support a policy that effectively bans collective bargaining.

how do right to work laws ban collective bargaining?

What incentive do I have to join a union if I'm not obligated to do so?

What's stopping me from just declining to join and letting the people who actually pay dues fund the negotiating process that gets me a higher wage and better benefits?

What's stopping unions from just negotiating higher wages and benefits for union workers only?