WI right-to-work law struck down by state circuit judge

[RINO Tom]

But I really don't understand how we label and talk about stuff in this country sometimes.  Why do we label and describe things as the opposite of what we mean?  "Right to Work?"   That label doesn't sound like it grants workers the right to refuse to join a union.  It sounds like it grants everyone the right to a job.  It's like defining "capitalism" is the prerogative of the state to abolish markets.  Why not call it "Right to be a Non-Union Employee?"

I just call it "right-to-scab."

And we all sit back and laugh at how stupid that is.

[SWE]

Nobody should be forced to join a union.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that that's indeed the case regardless of whether or not we have RTW.

[pbrower2a]

But I really don't understand how we label and talk about stuff in this country sometimes.  Why do we label and describe things as the opposite of what we mean?  "Right to Work?"   That label doesn't sound like it grants workers the right to refuse to join a union.  It sounds like it grants everyone the right to a job.  It's like defining "capitalism" is the prerogative of the state to abolish markets.  Why not call it "Right to be a Non-Union Employee?"

I just call it "right-to-scab."

Or right-to-work for much less.

The economic elites want unions eviscerated so that America can be a cheap-labor country with brutal management. 

And we all sit back and laugh at how stupid that is.

[MK]

I'm sure this will be overturned. 

But I really don't understand how we label and talk about stuff in this country sometimes.  Why do we label and describe things as the opposite of what we mean?  "Right to Work?"   That label doesn't sound like it grants workers the right to refuse to join a union.  It sounds like it grants everyone the right to a job.  It's like defining "capitalism" is the prerogative of the state to abolish markets.  Why not call it "Right to be a Non-Union Employee?"

It's like saying "government should be run like a business."  No, that's not what that expression  means.  Nobody expects businesses to purposefully cut of their own revenue streams, as governments are expected to cut taxes.  What the position should really be described as is "government should be run for the benefit of business."

I don't understand how we label and describe things these days.

Right-to-Work is really all about paying the workers le$$ and strip always protections and a right to have a voice in other job related decisions. 

[TJ in Oregon]

The merits of the issue aside, this ruling is laughable. He overturned it on the grounds of RTW violating the union's property rights.

[Mr. Reactionary]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wisconsin-right-to-work-law_us_574609f6e4b055bb1171138c

Surprise Surprise.

[Classic Conservative]

Huzzah

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Huzzah

Yup

[Phony Moderate]

Doesn't RTW make it illegal for private employers to force their workers to join a union? That seems pretty anti-economic freedom to me.

[Mr. Smith]

Dammit!

[RightBehind]

Employees aren't slaves. Down with Right to Work.

[ElectionsGuy]

Employees aren't slaves. Down with Right to Work.

Your right, so employees shouldn't be forced to pay fees for unions they don't want any part of.

[MaxQue]

Employees aren't slaves. Down with Right to Work.

Your right, so employees shouldn't be forced to pay fees for unions they don't want any part of.

Indeed, they are free to seek employment in another company.

[dax00]

Freedom judge. Contracts should be negotiated individually.

[SWE]

Freedom judge. Contracts should be negotiated individually.

So why do you support the government getting involved in that process?

[RightBehind]

Employees aren't slaves. Down with Right to Work.

Your right, so employees shouldn't be forced to pay fees for unions they don't want any part of.

Indeed, they are free to seek employment in another company.

So employers should be allowed to treat employees any way they want? What about accountability for them?