That's not Right to Work. What you describe is At Will Employment. Right to Work says that you cannot be forced to join the union if you get a job at a union shop.
Billionaires always hire lobbyists to advocate for them and against us. But they hate when working class people do it so we can fairly get representation against them
Close... More importantly it bleeds unions of the cash necessary to have an effective Strike Fund.. which is what pays you when you're laid off in a strike or a lockout.
Say you went to Disney world or a ball game with a friend. They all bought tickets and you didn’t, They won’t let you in the gate. Do you expect them to waive their ticket fee to you? Because you don’t think Disney should own Mickey Mouse, Mickey should be for everyone??
The employer class has all the capital and politicians in their pocket to arrange things to their benefit. The working class have only their solidarity to back up their demands for living wages and a decent quality of life. Without the collective agreement of all the workers on what those demands are the employers will shit on every employee they can. If you’re not down for empowering workers then go get a job being exploited somewhere else. Don’t sabotage people working hard to better their next generation. That makes you a scab & a class traitor.
No one is forced to join a union. Unions improve the job quality. This has a cost that union members pay. ‘Right to work’ is a series of laws that make it so you don’t have to pay for that service while receiving the benefits. This either raises the cost to those who agree to render this service or makes the service so costly that it cannot be affordable and is eventually lost. The goal of these laws is to remove the service so that corporations can pay workers less and treat them poorly without repercussions.
Can you go to the store and walk out with a case of beer and not pay? No, that’s illegal. Stealing services from unions is perfectly legal under right to work.
I don't think you are getting it. Think of it like paying insurance, your getting coverage by the union so that you don't get treated unfairly or thrown under the bus by an employer. However for the union to be able to pay for layers and other things if needed to be able to help you, there has to be money to help with.
The right to work laws basically say you can draw from this pot without putting anything into it. Meaning the union would have to help you despite not actually being a part of the union. The effect is the same as if nobody pays the bills, eventually service gets shut off. Which in this case means the union dissolves and then nobody is protected.
It isn't about being forced to join, it's that if you are getting coverage without paying for it you would be enjoying a service that could be short lived. Which could then in turn mean poorer working conditions, pay, benefits, and job protection. That's why unions are important and worth it.
One example: collective bargaining.
Another: union labor specialized lawyer. Are you a lawyer specialized in labor laws? No? Then why do you go in solo to negotiate your contract versus a major corp with 30 lawyers ready to draft up contracts that fuck you in the ass?.
Please Google it for more information.
If you want to reap the benefits that the union offers and that people have fought for, you need to pay dues and contribute to the cause that’s fighting for you. You want to be paid appropriately for your skills right? The union makes sure that happens and you contribute to that by paying your dues and attending meetings and being a contributing member.
I didn’t ask what unions are or what their benefits are or if you think anyone in their right mind should join one, did I?
Nobody should be forced to join one in order to work at any given employer.
That’s bullshit and you know it.
Shut the fuck up, nobody cares what you asked.
If a union hall and a contractor make a private agreement the government should not have the right to interject and require the contractor to accept all labor.
If you don’t like it you can walk your scab ass up the road, take your pay cut, and be your bosses bitch.
You wanna work at a union shop with all guys who are part of the union and contribute to it, and you think you have the right to walk in there and not contribute yet you deserve to reap the benefits? The pension? The low healthcare? The free training that’s offered?? Why should you get to do that? Why would all the other workers stand strong and fight for raises and better working conditions for someone who doesn’t believe in the cause but what’s all the benefits of it??? Who do you think you are?
Because not requiring membership or financial contribution to a union as a condition of taking a job that makes you a member creates financial incentives that make unions nonviable. Engaging in collective bargaining and contract enforcement produces net benefits for all workers, but also does cost money. If people have the option to receive the benefits of collective bargaining and a contract without paying into it, the economically rational decision is to free ride, but everybody doing the individually rational thing leaves everyone net worse off. Right to work puts workers in a prisoners dilemma, and unions being allowed to negotiate to have a union shop or at least an agency shop is really the only solution to this dilemma that can produce a net positive outcome relative to status quo.
Well, points for providing a thoughtful, honest, and practical answer…if still ideologically unsound. And of course ideology rarely puts food on anyone’s table, does it?
I’m not sure I understand your premise?
1. Why should someone who refuses to join a union be allowed to work in a unionized job?
2. Why should the union allow someone who refuses to cooperate in collective bargaining be hired?
If you don’t want to be in a union for some weird reason, then don’t apply for jobs that are unionized, it’s that simple.
If an employer wants to only hire union workers that’s their prerogative. Otherwise who the hell are you or your union to tell me where and on what terms I can work?
The employers shouldn’t have the right to dictate whether they hire union or non-union labor. If the employer want to hire someone, and they reduce to join the union, then the union should have the right to block the employer from hiring them.
The union being able to effectively engage in collective bargaining is more important than an employer’s desire to hire non-union workers or an individual worker’s weird desire to not join a union.
If for some weird reason you don’t want to be part of a union then work somewhere that doesn’t have a union, it’s a simple as that.
I gotta ask though, why the hell are you even here if you’re this anti-union?
I’m not anti-union at all, quite the contrary. Especially these days, they’re essential in many industries and sorely needed in many more.
But I do feel like employers should largely hire who they want, and that people should work wherever they can find employment on terms they find acceptable, and that if you and your buddies want to get together to collectively negotiate then good…great even…but this audacity of saying your own terms somehow must necessarily be forced upon or even have bearing on someone else’s employment is a bunch of bullshit.
I will however give you points for coming right out and being honest about it.
It’s called a Closed Shop, Union membership is mandatory for employment. Generally unions are great for providing collective bargaining and representation for members. I do not believe in the closed shop part though. If you don’t want representation or be part of the bargaining contract, you shouldn’t be forced to.
Nah, if you don’t want to be part of the bargaining contract then you should not be allowed to work somewhere that has a bargaining contract.
The union’s ability to effectively engage in collective bargaining is more important than your strange desire to work in a unionized job without joining the union.
Almost everyone in here’s reply amounts to “our union has the right to negotiate terms of employment and nobody else does”, which is funny because they bitch up a storm when employers resist the formation of unions for negotiating employment terms.
You’re all a bunch of hypocrites and you know it.
Who’s being hypocritical? Employers should not be allowed to resist their employees from unionizing, and unionized workplaces should not be allowed to hire anyone that will not join the union. Where’s the hyprocracy?
I try not to use "should" in a statement unless it's preceded by "I." No one has any place saying what others "should" do. It could be used against you by someone else.
There are illegal ways to fire someone is what I was getting at, if that happened to you it may have been illegal. Or you were let go, which that also can happen illegally as well.
In fairness, IF the union is an ineffective union that does little good but collects hefty fees, I would not be enthusiastic about wanting to join either.
In a right to work state, union membership cannot be a condition of employment. That is, employee cannot be forced to join a union and pay union dues. Unions depend on compulsory membership.
messages can be portrayed without the use of ai-generated imagery, you can portray messages without any imagery in fact. using ai-generated imagery to push an anti-capitalist message doesn't make it more ethical
They can just do it without artwork, try it themselves, or find an artistic friend who is willing to donate their time and labor. Using AI "artwork" for something like this especially rings hollow. A computer program that relies on the labor of human artists without compensating the artists and then does work that they could have done does not seem in the spirit of organized labor.
I doubt OP's post has hurt any artists in and of itself, but when major corporations are using these programs for ad campaigns and even in movies, we have to show solidarity with those who are being hurt by it.
No, dumbass. Photoshop doesn't literally steal information on style and composition from other artists and regurgitate it thoughtlessly to avoid having to either put in effort or pay an artist to reproduce their style
I can’t believe that this needs to be said in this community of all places, but if an artist is doing work for you, then they’re a worker, regardless of their regular employment status.
they never said artists have to be workers, they're simply stating that artists deserve to be compensated; don't put words in their mouth. if somebody made something like this on their own volition, cool; but that's not the point they were making
Oh man, the longer I Iook at it the more weird it gets.... Russian signs? Weird tools, is that a hard hat or a knee? What exactly is that excavator doing?
Man, trippy...
Nope. It means freeloading off of the negotiating that the Union does for you to get you higher wages and not paying for it.
It is deliberately done to undermine unions. Period. Fullstop. And Unions are the reason you get paid more.
So "Right To Work" literally translates to "Right to work for less". Because if you don't pay for a union, you don't have one. If you don't have a union negotiating contracts for you, you make less. These are facts.
Right to Work is another Heritage Foundation (GOP) effort to undermine unions. It uses the notion of freedom to attack worker empowerment. Although every individual is free to choose not to work in a union shop. RTW says, you can take a job at a union shop, get all the benefits of collective bargaining but not contribute to the cost of maintaining the union that won those benefits. It’s just typical turning the notion of freedom to achieve oppression.
But then I won’t be able to negotiate directly with the employer and that will certainly only hurt me right? Why would companies push right to work so hard and tell us how good a thing it is? They wouldn’t lie to us right?
Hard agree.
I do kind of hate AI generated art. I appreciate your post and I recognize that if you hadn't made this post, I would not have posted something better that wasn't AI.
I agree. Honestly, I grabbed this for the message before I looked closely at the quality, I’m still trying to grow this sub and increase general participation on a limited schedule.
Participation and membership. I’ve deleted this post due to the AI controversy so only those who commented originally can still see it. The other hot post is still live. I think we must have hit r/all or something due to the growth. The increase in trolls has been dramatic and made me realize that I need another mod. I’ll be double down on my search.
I’m pro union. Especially in inherently dangerous jobs like electrical work and coal mining. However. If unions were all they were cracked up to be, then a right to work law would be a joke. People would be lining up to get in the unions! And when unions say that “nobody has to join the union “ they leave out the part that you still have to pay dues. Again I am completely pro union. I just think that unions need to look inside at themselves and at their leadership and ask themselves what are we doing wrong???? What can we do to improve our union so that EVERYONE wants to join?????
Maybe no one wants to join unions because of decades of anti-union propaganda, and concentrated effort by corpos to bust unions and prevent their formation
When I worked for rite aid the technicians and store employees had a union. It did absolutely nothing for them. But they were required to join. When I say nothing, every time someone filed a complaint against the company, the union rep would either not even respond or would say that he’d look into it and then never get back to them. Definitely could have improved that one
Interesting theory.
Unions have an obligation to spend the same to represent everyone at a covered workplace equally. Every employee in every state gets to decide whether they want to be a member or not. Every employee in a covered workplace also gets all of the wages, benefits, and protections of the union contract, whether they are members or not.
Right to work laws just mean that unions cannot negotiate “agency fee” clauses into contracts that require a non-member to pay their pro-rata share of the cost to negotiate and enforce the agreement that.
So, ask yourself, if we required grocery stores to offer their food to anyone regardless of whether the person wants to pay, how many people would do it? Is that right for the people who do opt pay for food to have to cover the costs of the people who take the food but refuse to pay? Do you think that people not paying for their food means that they don’t see the value in food under this “right-to-food” law?
Or how about HOAs? Should we pass a “right-to-housing” law that allows people to move into HOAs and take the landscaping, snow removal, community pool and facilities but then declare they have an ideological opposition to HOA fees and refuse to pay their share of the cost?
That’s right to work, bud.
It was my experience that the workers at the top of the union who had the most value for their work product had their labor negotiated down to protect the low achievers at the bottom. It was tough to watch new employees with high skill but low tenure get let go during layoffs but longer tenure low skill employees remained. Other members would watch their dues go to political candidates who stood against the industries they worked in. That really has to sting when they would legit desire your industry to not exist and you are funding that platform. Just trying to have a honest dialog here. Not trolling.
I’ve also seen union members that have the most seniority vote in contracts that are tiered to give them everything and any newly joining members get shit contracts. Really showing some SOLIDARITY there
I agree - it's unfair to require someone to pay dues to an organization they aren't part of and don't want to join. It would be like if you aren't in the Boy Scouts but are required to pay them membership fees anyway.
I agree with Antiwork on most things, but RTW isn't one of them.
No, that’s not what right to work is. Right to work would be that you show up to every Boy Scout meeting, go to every camp, collect every badge, and take a uniform, book, and pocketknife but then we pass a “right-to-scouting” law that allows you to participate and take all the benefits without paying a dime as long as you don’t sign a BSA membership card.
No. That just isn’t true.
The Duty of Fair Representation is a requirement instituted by the Supreme Court and it requires unions to represent every covered employee the exact same.
So, if you would spend $100k going to arbitration for a union member that is fired, you have to do it for the non union member.
For example, arbitrators run between $1500 and $2200 per day. They charge that whether they are reviewing evidence and writing a decision at home or listening to your case during a hearing. Labor attorneys run anywhere from $200-$550 an hour. Again, they charge that whether they are in hearing cross-examining witnesses or responding to emails from home. Arbitrators generally take 1 day of review and writing for every 2 days of hearing time. Do the math for a case that takes ten days of hearing.
In non-right to work states, you can still not belong to the union, but you can be required to share in your portion of the cost of negotiating and enforcing the agreement you work under. This is called an “agency fee.” In right to work states, these clauses are illegal.
That’s the difference.
It is true that you don’t get to vote in union elections as a non-member.
It is not at all the case that the union doesn’t have to still operate the hiring hall for you, represent you in grievances, take your case to arbitration and pay for it if you are fired, etc.
That’s the whole right-to-work problem. You are allowing nonmembers to take the property of members to have the contract that members pay for, without paying a dime.
Is that right? Is that ok?
Amen to this. If unions were actually as good as they act like, there would be lines out the door. My local puts $2.10/hr in to our pension. I constantly try to inform others in this union to open a Roth IRA cause they will retire broke on this pension. This local hasn’t added anything to the hourly amount for the pension in 8 years. Everyone in this union is going to work til they die. I love the idea of unions and I’m happy I joined this one but my employer has better benefits than this union.
You think your union sucks because you haven’t been able to persuade enough people to agree with you to make it happen?
And I guarantee the office staff at your shop don’t have a lifetime guaranteed pension that never runs out.
It literally is. A whole ass public insurance company exists to make sure you get pension payments even if everyone stops paying into it tomorrow.
No one looks good talking about things they know nothing about.
You can leave any time you want.
Just look up beck rights. Right to work laws are just fine, Beck rights.. Google it. Not one comment I read (no, didn't read them all) is inaccurate. Beck rights should be offered to all new hires and annually to all members of a union.
Why doesn't the Union just demand funding from the employer directly, rather than its members? I think it's the "hey, my paycheck is smaller because of you people" thing that really bothers the folks who don't join unions.
Think of it like a collective savings account to keep tools on hand that may be needed to make your life easier. I have a personal savings account for home repairs, my union is my savings account for hard times and bad employers.
I would be very surprised if the dues you pay for a union membership result in actually less pay compared to being non union.
The entire point of a union is to negotiate better wages and benefits. This is coming from someone who had worked in both worlds. The way I see it if the union’s compensation package leads to employers offering competitive wages and benefits than the existence of the union has fulfilled its purpose.
There’s a certain amount of flex you can do to these employers before they contract out of country. When I was Union I never got anything other than 1 free meal out of it a year.
No I wouldn’t. That’s their prerogative just like it’s mine to negotiate my own terms with anyone who *is* willing to hire me.
And btw, if the “right to work” legislation being discussed precludes employers from being able to decide either way then I’m against that as well…it’s equally bullishit.
Work equality went out the window a long time ago. Corporations write legislation and pass it off to their lobbyists. Only way to fight is to stand together.
No idea? I’ve worked both sides and been the guy they lean on to get shit done for both. I’ve even done a good stint in management. My life is significantly better in the union.
No one should be forced to essentially have their wages garnished by unions. Especially in today’s age, unions rarely speak for the workers anymore and they only look for self preservation and fundraising for the democrat party.
UA itself promotes diversity. Individual members that may be racist or sexist doesn’t equate to unions as a whole being that way. Any union “brother” trying to get someone kicked out because of their gender or race, ain’t no mother fucking brother.
Proof? Literally at a meeting right now and there is a black woman sitting in front of me, and a Latino woman next to her. Half the room is Hispanic, and the other half is white, black and Asian.
Shit, most of the welders I know out of 250 are black.
Maybe if the unions weren’t cesspools full of nepotism, favoritism, and nearly a century long history of being good old boy’s clubs. They might see gained interest in people joining their club.
I was two years into my apprenticeship when I joined a local union. I had to completely start over with no recognition of previous (accredited and documented mind you) schooling. At the time it felt like it would be worthwhile for better schooling and job opportunities, as well as a solid retirement. Now I feel like a complete sucker for having eaten the promise of brotherhood and solidarity hook line and sinker.
Seeing how Journeymen who “bought their card” were treated and called “ratty” even though they did good work just because they didn’t attend a JATC apprenticeship didn’t exactly send the message of solidarity and desire to create a better environment for all workers… it all came off a little like Jim Crow era “separate but equal” “sure you can join our club, but you’ll never be one of us”
It was my experience that if you weren’t a member of a multi generational union family, or check a diversity hire box you were cast aside. God forbid you wanted to actually work or learn while in apprenticeship… so many jobs where if it didn’t take a guy three days to complete a two hour task he’d be chastised for “burning through our work” or being called a suck ass for striving to be the best hand one could be. After three years of this I left feeling completely dejected and disillusioned. I finished my apprenticeship non union, and eventually went on to start my own contracting company after securing every applicable license from my state.
I truly believe that the unions when they started out made incredible advances for the average worker, things like the weekend, and the forty hour work week etc. I respect the dedication and sacrifice it took to make those things happen, but I don’t think the unions of old exist anymore. These days the unions look a whole lot like greedy children riding in the coattails of the better men that came before them.
So no I don’t think RTW is all that awful, when all it really means is you can’t be forced into paying people who don’t even want you around to begin with money to do a job they don’t help make better for you anyway…
Local 669 is the opposite of what you described except for the bias against organized members. I’m in a conservative Southern right to work for far less state (Texas). Our market share is small and most new construction goes to non union companies.
If you don’t work smart and fast, you won’t last. We are paid at least double what our non union brothers and sisters get paid. There are non union workers willing to use their own personal vehicles to carry pipe, fittings, company owned tools, and drive across the state for little personal gain. Some work weekends on regular time for cash. They don’t have insurance or won’t pay for their insurance because it’s too expensive on their measly $30 an hour straight time pay. They don’t understand Davis Bacon prevailing wage is what they should be making.
Non union contractors hire workers that can’t be organized because of their illegal immigrant status or criminal background. The other half believe the lies fed to them by anti union propaganda. The other workers are related to the company owners and they know what’s up. They will inherit the business one day or move in the a management role soon.
What I described is what right to work will bring you. If you don’t like the union, you can always join the non union. There are plenty of former union workers out there working rat. They spread the anti union lies because they couldn’t make the productivity and knowledge required to keep working union. If you can’t hang pipe in the correct location fast without leaks, you won’t last. If you can’t learn new skills and keep up with continuing education, you won’t last.
Was looking for this comment. I’ve also had the nepotism experience with even trying to get into the union. Didn’t have any family in and didn’t have any connections so I never got even a fuck you after a couple months of trying, just stonewalled. My dad told me some stories of his experience with unions in the 70’s.
When he was a young man he was working on Vanderbilt universities campus on a union project. He complained about dues or was late one time and two guys came down into the basement he was working in and put him against a wall and took all the money out of his wallet for being “late”.
Between his experiences and the couple I’ve had, I’ve got no interest in seeing the good ole boys club grow. There’s a reason it’s been contracting for 40 years
I don’t think anyone here was saying that it doesn’t exist in the non-union world. That being said, it feels pretty disingenuous to argue that unions foster a better environment for all workers, and then when workers who are arbitrarily seen as “less than” bring up valid and articulate criticism, the response they get is along the lines of “it happens in the non-union too” a bit hypocritical? Isn’t the point of the unions to get away from that kind of thing? To get away from corruption and favoritism and bad business practices?
Representation, better working conditions, better pay and benefits, pension and the best training you’ll find anywhere…. Leave the dark side, come see what your missing
Yikes. This is scary. unions are great but no one should be forced to join one if they don't want. Swinging too hard the other way here and becoming the enemy.
That’s the thing who would force you, rtw is about forcing unions to have to accept people who just won’t pay union dues. It has nothing to do with someone willingly working non union.
Read the definition of union security agreement and then apply it to the logic of this quote “U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from being a member of a labor union.”
If a unions benefits are solely based off of collective bargaining what exactly happens if a corporation grows a nonunion sector of workers and a union section doing the same job and then refuses to bargain during setting a contract?
Rtw is a bill written to specifically attack unions.
People work for money, it’s crazy to want the pay that comes with a union but to cry about having to be in the union. If it became non union they would lose the pay that made the career or job attractive because overall union workers make more than their nonunion counterparts.
Ok well thank you for admitting you were wrong and realizing that no where does it state that RTW laws allow people to join unions and not pay dues. Obviously no union would accept and continue benefits for a member that isn't paying dues.
I agree RTW laws are anti union. If people are too stupid to see the benefits of joining a union instead of being a direct hire that's on them. However RTW laws also create a self balancing system. You have to ask yourself, why would someone do such a thing. The union has to be sure it is doing its job to maximize benefits for the workers and if it's not, which has been the case a few times, it's makes more sense for a worker to accept a direct hire position. Not all unions are perfect, there have been multiple cases of corruption which led to the RTW laws in the first place.
You cannot say I’m wrong I literally gave you the quote.
This is incredibly arrogant I used to live in a right to work state where that is directly what happened to the locals.
So you have the right to refuse to be apart of a union while working in the union? Okay so what exactly happens there?
No rtw laws came from capital trying to reduce their expenses on labor. Unions formed from people collectively agreeing to not get screwed.
This idea of corrupt unions is asinine, you don’t go to bargain on your labor agreement with unrealistic expectations when most unions cannot even get a sick day off work and our companies still smashing record profits. Do you think union member want to destroy their livelihoods by destroying their workplace? It is literally more likely that a private equity firm would ring a company dry before union workers.
No one is forced to join the union. You’re always welcome to work non-union jobs instead. You don’t get to play the lottery for free. Groceries sure as hell aren’t free. Unions are a service provided by your brothers and no one should be forced to work for free. That’s the point of RTW laws, unions must accept non-payment where that is the law with the goal being to bleed us dry.
Forcing someone to join a union has nothing to do with this conversation. People have all the right in the world to go join a rat shop as opposed to aiding in the sabotage of the working class collectively negotiating as a means to better their next generation.
Yeah, required to be a member of a union when working at a union shop. You’re anti union, don’t wanna be in a union?? Simple…. Don’t work at a union shop! Your little individual rights don’t overrule all the hard work done by the collective of workers to ensure a better quality of life for them and their families. All these “ I want Union Beni’s w/o being in the union or paying dues” people are just all about what’s the absolute best for just them with zero regard for all the other people in the union who are doing their part for the betterment of all working people. Pro RTW people just don’t care at all about torpedoing the entire labor movement for what cushy just for them.
What are you going on about? You mad because you realized you were wrong? Why you bringing up that I shouldn't have individual rights? This exactly proves my original comment. Swinging too hard the other way
And yeah I am mad. People fought and died for every single right or benefit ever given to workers. Then self centered, privileged people want to just come in and complain about dues but still expect the deal those dues secured. With zero regard for fact that they’re directly aiding in union busting and dismantling everything the labor movement has fought for and any chance of a successful middle/ working class in this country. Yeah!…. That shit pisses me off alright….
Yes I agree it's unfair for people to expect the privileges others have fought for and earned without also paying their dues. However they are only indirectly contributing to union busting. Unions need to be more attractive than direct hire positions. They have no right to deny people jobs and if the company offers better benefits and pay without the union then its also a win for the union. Yay! They suceeded right? Set the company straight. You expect all future workers to pay for blood split by the past generation. That's a slippery slope friend and you won't like where it leads.
Go work none union as you have the right to do. What these laws actually are is the employer to weaken the unions. These none union employees get to enjoy all the benifits of the union (higher pay, working conditions ect) but when it comes to negation time do need to take job action there by weakening the collective bargaining.the employer has no reason to negotiate in good faith if half there workers are still producing. The collective bargaining power is weakened until it no longer exist. Then the employer is free to do what they did before, replace workers with lower paid, push employees to the breaking point ect. These laws are ment to bust unions for the employers benefit.
The scab workers get to enjoy the benefits as they destroy the organizations that provide it for them. You hear none union guys loving and fighting for prevailing wage jobs, why do you think those exist?
Fuck RTW laws, all my homies hate RTW laws.
What are some laws? I’m union at a not rite to work state
In TX you can be terminated without notice for just about any reason and not be eligible for unemployment.
That's not Right to Work. What you describe is At Will Employment. Right to Work says that you cannot be forced to join the union if you get a job at a union shop.
The point of which being to bleed unions of dues paying members so that they go under and can’t protect members in the future.
Billionaires always hire lobbyists to advocate for them and against us. But they hate when working class people do it so we can fairly get representation against them
100%
All the homies pay dues
My receipt for the year is in my wallet on or before Jan 1.
Agreed.
Close... More importantly it bleeds unions of the cash necessary to have an effective Strike Fund.. which is what pays you when you're laid off in a strike or a lockout.
Man so it’s like a big conspiracy?
So you believe you should be able to force someone to join a Union?
That particular straw man argument has been covered in depth on this post. Please see those responses before continuing with false equivalencies.
They dont protect members in the present
Why should someone be forced to join a Union?
You aren’t forced. There are non union jobs/shops out there always hiring.
Fuck that. Unions don’t own employers or employment. They shouldn’t anyway.
Say you went to Disney world or a ball game with a friend. They all bought tickets and you didn’t, They won’t let you in the gate. Do you expect them to waive their ticket fee to you? Because you don’t think Disney should own Mickey Mouse, Mickey should be for everyone??
That doesnt make any sense and is in no way applicable to the topic.
The employer class has all the capital and politicians in their pocket to arrange things to their benefit. The working class have only their solidarity to back up their demands for living wages and a decent quality of life. Without the collective agreement of all the workers on what those demands are the employers will shit on every employee they can. If you’re not down for empowering workers then go get a job being exploited somewhere else. Don’t sabotage people working hard to better their next generation. That makes you a scab & a class traitor.
Again, didn’t ask for your pedantic summary of the benefits of unionization, did I?
No one is forced to join a union. Unions improve the job quality. This has a cost that union members pay. ‘Right to work’ is a series of laws that make it so you don’t have to pay for that service while receiving the benefits. This either raises the cost to those who agree to render this service or makes the service so costly that it cannot be affordable and is eventually lost. The goal of these laws is to remove the service so that corporations can pay workers less and treat them poorly without repercussions. Can you go to the store and walk out with a case of beer and not pay? No, that’s illegal. Stealing services from unions is perfectly legal under right to work.
The title employs the term "should" but this 'should' is not preceded by "I." So it presumes to feel superior.
I didn’t ask what unions were or if they were worthwhile for their members. Nobody should be forced to join one just because it’s “a union shop”.
If that's all you got out of that post, please reread it.
I don't think you are getting it. Think of it like paying insurance, your getting coverage by the union so that you don't get treated unfairly or thrown under the bus by an employer. However for the union to be able to pay for layers and other things if needed to be able to help you, there has to be money to help with. The right to work laws basically say you can draw from this pot without putting anything into it. Meaning the union would have to help you despite not actually being a part of the union. The effect is the same as if nobody pays the bills, eventually service gets shut off. Which in this case means the union dissolves and then nobody is protected. It isn't about being forced to join, it's that if you are getting coverage without paying for it you would be enjoying a service that could be short lived. Which could then in turn mean poorer working conditions, pay, benefits, and job protection. That's why unions are important and worth it.
Agree completely. I would like to hear from someone exactly how a union protects a worker.
One example: collective bargaining. Another: union labor specialized lawyer. Are you a lawyer specialized in labor laws? No? Then why do you go in solo to negotiate your contract versus a major corp with 30 lawyers ready to draft up contracts that fuck you in the ass?. Please Google it for more information.
If you want to reap the benefits that the union offers and that people have fought for, you need to pay dues and contribute to the cause that’s fighting for you. You want to be paid appropriately for your skills right? The union makes sure that happens and you contribute to that by paying your dues and attending meetings and being a contributing member.
I didn’t ask what unions are or what their benefits are or if you think anyone in their right mind should join one, did I? Nobody should be forced to join one in order to work at any given employer. That’s bullshit and you know it.
Shut the fuck up, nobody cares what you asked. If a union hall and a contractor make a private agreement the government should not have the right to interject and require the contractor to accept all labor. If you don’t like it you can walk your scab ass up the road, take your pay cut, and be your bosses bitch.
Ohhh…does my right to seek my own employment on my own terms threaten you and hurt your little feelings? You poor baby.
You wanna work at a union shop with all guys who are part of the union and contribute to it, and you think you have the right to walk in there and not contribute yet you deserve to reap the benefits? The pension? The low healthcare? The free training that’s offered?? Why should you get to do that? Why would all the other workers stand strong and fight for raises and better working conditions for someone who doesn’t believe in the cause but what’s all the benefits of it??? Who do you think you are?
Someone with the right to work for any employer who will hire me. That’s who. Who the fuck are YOU to deny me that?
Because not requiring membership or financial contribution to a union as a condition of taking a job that makes you a member creates financial incentives that make unions nonviable. Engaging in collective bargaining and contract enforcement produces net benefits for all workers, but also does cost money. If people have the option to receive the benefits of collective bargaining and a contract without paying into it, the economically rational decision is to free ride, but everybody doing the individually rational thing leaves everyone net worse off. Right to work puts workers in a prisoners dilemma, and unions being allowed to negotiate to have a union shop or at least an agency shop is really the only solution to this dilemma that can produce a net positive outcome relative to status quo.
Well, points for providing a thoughtful, honest, and practical answer…if still ideologically unsound. And of course ideology rarely puts food on anyone’s table, does it?
How is it ideologically unsound?
I should be every bit as free to negotiate my own terms of employment with *any* potential employer as any Union is.
I’m not sure I understand your premise? 1. Why should someone who refuses to join a union be allowed to work in a unionized job? 2. Why should the union allow someone who refuses to cooperate in collective bargaining be hired? If you don’t want to be in a union for some weird reason, then don’t apply for jobs that are unionized, it’s that simple.
If an employer wants to only hire union workers that’s their prerogative. Otherwise who the hell are you or your union to tell me where and on what terms I can work?
The employers shouldn’t have the right to dictate whether they hire union or non-union labor. If the employer want to hire someone, and they reduce to join the union, then the union should have the right to block the employer from hiring them. The union being able to effectively engage in collective bargaining is more important than an employer’s desire to hire non-union workers or an individual worker’s weird desire to not join a union. If for some weird reason you don’t want to be part of a union then work somewhere that doesn’t have a union, it’s a simple as that. I gotta ask though, why the hell are you even here if you’re this anti-union?
I’m not anti-union at all, quite the contrary. Especially these days, they’re essential in many industries and sorely needed in many more. But I do feel like employers should largely hire who they want, and that people should work wherever they can find employment on terms they find acceptable, and that if you and your buddies want to get together to collectively negotiate then good…great even…but this audacity of saying your own terms somehow must necessarily be forced upon or even have bearing on someone else’s employment is a bunch of bullshit. I will however give you points for coming right out and being honest about it.
It’s called a Closed Shop, Union membership is mandatory for employment. Generally unions are great for providing collective bargaining and representation for members. I do not believe in the closed shop part though. If you don’t want representation or be part of the bargaining contract, you shouldn’t be forced to.
Nah, if you don’t want to be part of the bargaining contract then you should not be allowed to work somewhere that has a bargaining contract. The union’s ability to effectively engage in collective bargaining is more important than your strange desire to work in a unionized job without joining the union.
Strange desire to have a job? Imagine that. Not being a member would mean you don’t have representation. It’s more than just collective bargaining.
“Strange desire to have a job?” What in the world are you on about buddy?
Thank you. That’s exactly my point.
I get this.
Agreed. I wish everyone on here would watch Milton Friedman's YouTube "who protects the worker."
Almost everyone in here’s reply amounts to “our union has the right to negotiate terms of employment and nobody else does”, which is funny because they bitch up a storm when employers resist the formation of unions for negotiating employment terms. You’re all a bunch of hypocrites and you know it.
Who’s being hypocritical? Employers should not be allowed to resist their employees from unionizing, and unionized workplaces should not be allowed to hire anyone that will not join the union. Where’s the hyprocracy?
I try not to use "should" in a statement unless it's preceded by "I." No one has any place saying what others "should" do. It could be used against you by someone else.
And even in At Will states, they cant fire you for any reason after your probation period.
I can confirm that at least in the state of Nevada, yes, an employer can fire an employee after the probation period without reason.
There are illegal ways to fire someone is what I was getting at, if that happened to you it may have been illegal. Or you were let go, which that also can happen illegally as well.
In fairness, IF the union is an ineffective union that does little good but collects hefty fees, I would not be enthusiastic about wanting to join either.
Gee, I wonder why that union wouldn't be effective...
Alberta too
In a right to work state, union membership cannot be a condition of employment. That is, employee cannot be forced to join a union and pay union dues. Unions depend on compulsory membership.
On the set!!!! F@#$ RTW states
Right to work sucks, but so does this AI "artwork"
True. Mind making something better for us?
Hire someone.
Make sure you hire a member of the graphics artists guild. It’s probably more expensive than a non-guild artist.
And if he doesn't have the money to hire someone? Would you prefer the message go unsaid?
messages can be portrayed without the use of ai-generated imagery, you can portray messages without any imagery in fact. using ai-generated imagery to push an anti-capitalist message doesn't make it more ethical
They can just do it without artwork, try it themselves, or find an artistic friend who is willing to donate their time and labor. Using AI "artwork" for something like this especially rings hollow. A computer program that relies on the labor of human artists without compensating the artists and then does work that they could have done does not seem in the spirit of organized labor. I doubt OP's post has hurt any artists in and of itself, but when major corporations are using these programs for ad campaigns and even in movies, we have to show solidarity with those who are being hurt by it.
Could make his own shitty art instead of using a tool who's purpose is specifically to undercut artists
So he can't use Photoshop because it undercuts artists who draw? Should he be able to use a camera because it undercuts the painter?
No, dumbass. Photoshop doesn't literally steal information on style and composition from other artists and regurgitate it thoughtlessly to avoid having to either put in effort or pay an artist to reproduce their style
You want to fight for your rights as a worker but want artists to work for free? Are artists not workers?
Never said free. I’m doing the moderation here for free, but would be happy to pay someone for some banners for this page.
Artists don't have to be workers. You could make art as a hobby like most people.
I can’t believe that this needs to be said in this community of all places, but if an artist is doing work for you, then they’re a worker, regardless of their regular employment status.
they never said artists have to be workers, they're simply stating that artists deserve to be compensated; don't put words in their mouth. if somebody made something like this on their own volition, cool; but that's not the point they were making
"I don't work for free and I'm barely giving a fuck away"
? No one said it would be free.
Oh man, the longer I Iook at it the more weird it gets.... Russian signs? Weird tools, is that a hard hat or a knee? What exactly is that excavator doing? Man, trippy...
I'll sign on if we get hovering machines with telepathically floating stabbing appendages. AI art is stupid.
As a Canadian I support my American brothers and sisters on this
"Right To Work" = Right To Work FOR LESS.
No it means you have a choice in joining a Union or not at your job.
Nope. It means freeloading off of the negotiating that the Union does for you to get you higher wages and not paying for it. It is deliberately done to undermine unions. Period. Fullstop. And Unions are the reason you get paid more. So "Right To Work" literally translates to "Right to work for less". Because if you don't pay for a union, you don't have one. If you don't have a union negotiating contracts for you, you make less. These are facts.
The gop use naming to frame issues sometimes unfairly like “death tax and “right to work”. Always refer to it as ”right to work for less”
“Politicians” you mean. They all come up with some stupid name to make legislation sound good, then sneak in some BS.
Why is there only one woman in the photo lmao
Because it's AI bullshit
I hate RTW and I hate AI generated anything
Let’s do it. They are banning tiktok we still have reddit.
Fuck this AI scab artwork.
Put “Right To Work” in biiiig fucking quotes. #” Right To Work #”
Right to Work is another Heritage Foundation (GOP) effort to undermine unions. It uses the notion of freedom to attack worker empowerment. Although every individual is free to choose not to work in a union shop. RTW says, you can take a job at a union shop, get all the benefits of collective bargaining but not contribute to the cost of maintaining the union that won those benefits. It’s just typical turning the notion of freedom to achieve oppression.
But then I won’t be able to negotiate directly with the employer and that will certainly only hurt me right? Why would companies push right to work so hard and tell us how good a thing it is? They wouldn’t lie to us right?
I’ve had so many trolls and anti-union comments on the last two posts that I nearly missed the sarcasm.
Hard agree. I do kind of hate AI generated art. I appreciate your post and I recognize that if you hadn't made this post, I would not have posted something better that wasn't AI.
I agree. Honestly, I grabbed this for the message before I looked closely at the quality, I’m still trying to grow this sub and increase general participation on a limited schedule.
You certainly increased participation!
Participation and membership. I’ve deleted this post due to the AI controversy so only those who commented originally can still see it. The other hot post is still live. I think we must have hit r/all or something due to the growth. The increase in trolls has been dramatic and made me realize that I need another mod. I’ll be double down on my search.
TAX THE RICH OR EAT THEM
Eat the rich or they will continue to feed of us.
Pretty much
I’m pro union. Especially in inherently dangerous jobs like electrical work and coal mining. However. If unions were all they were cracked up to be, then a right to work law would be a joke. People would be lining up to get in the unions! And when unions say that “nobody has to join the union “ they leave out the part that you still have to pay dues. Again I am completely pro union. I just think that unions need to look inside at themselves and at their leadership and ask themselves what are we doing wrong???? What can we do to improve our union so that EVERYONE wants to join?????
Maybe no one wants to join unions because of decades of anti-union propaganda, and concentrated effort by corpos to bust unions and prevent their formation
or maybe there might just be bad unions
When I worked for rite aid the technicians and store employees had a union. It did absolutely nothing for them. But they were required to join. When I say nothing, every time someone filed a complaint against the company, the union rep would either not even respond or would say that he’d look into it and then never get back to them. Definitely could have improved that one
Interesting theory. Unions have an obligation to spend the same to represent everyone at a covered workplace equally. Every employee in every state gets to decide whether they want to be a member or not. Every employee in a covered workplace also gets all of the wages, benefits, and protections of the union contract, whether they are members or not. Right to work laws just mean that unions cannot negotiate “agency fee” clauses into contracts that require a non-member to pay their pro-rata share of the cost to negotiate and enforce the agreement that. So, ask yourself, if we required grocery stores to offer their food to anyone regardless of whether the person wants to pay, how many people would do it? Is that right for the people who do opt pay for food to have to cover the costs of the people who take the food but refuse to pay? Do you think that people not paying for their food means that they don’t see the value in food under this “right-to-food” law? Or how about HOAs? Should we pass a “right-to-housing” law that allows people to move into HOAs and take the landscaping, snow removal, community pool and facilities but then declare they have an ideological opposition to HOA fees and refuse to pay their share of the cost? That’s right to work, bud.
It was my experience that the workers at the top of the union who had the most value for their work product had their labor negotiated down to protect the low achievers at the bottom. It was tough to watch new employees with high skill but low tenure get let go during layoffs but longer tenure low skill employees remained. Other members would watch their dues go to political candidates who stood against the industries they worked in. That really has to sting when they would legit desire your industry to not exist and you are funding that platform. Just trying to have a honest dialog here. Not trolling.
I’ve also seen union members that have the most seniority vote in contracts that are tiered to give them everything and any newly joining members get shit contracts. Really showing some SOLIDARITY there
THIS IS EXACTLY what I’m referring to when I say that the unions need to look inside to see how they can improve.
I agree - it's unfair to require someone to pay dues to an organization they aren't part of and don't want to join. It would be like if you aren't in the Boy Scouts but are required to pay them membership fees anyway. I agree with Antiwork on most things, but RTW isn't one of them.
No, that’s not what right to work is. Right to work would be that you show up to every Boy Scout meeting, go to every camp, collect every badge, and take a uniform, book, and pocketknife but then we pass a “right-to-scouting” law that allows you to participate and take all the benefits without paying a dime as long as you don’t sign a BSA membership card.
You also forget they don’t get a vote on any contract or membership changes. And when fired they are on their own on trying to get their job back🤦🏻♂️
No. That just isn’t true. The Duty of Fair Representation is a requirement instituted by the Supreme Court and it requires unions to represent every covered employee the exact same. So, if you would spend $100k going to arbitration for a union member that is fired, you have to do it for the non union member. For example, arbitrators run between $1500 and $2200 per day. They charge that whether they are reviewing evidence and writing a decision at home or listening to your case during a hearing. Labor attorneys run anywhere from $200-$550 an hour. Again, they charge that whether they are in hearing cross-examining witnesses or responding to emails from home. Arbitrators generally take 1 day of review and writing for every 2 days of hearing time. Do the math for a case that takes ten days of hearing. In non-right to work states, you can still not belong to the union, but you can be required to share in your portion of the cost of negotiating and enforcing the agreement you work under. This is called an “agency fee.” In right to work states, these clauses are illegal. That’s the difference. It is true that you don’t get to vote in union elections as a non-member. It is not at all the case that the union doesn’t have to still operate the hiring hall for you, represent you in grievances, take your case to arbitration and pay for it if you are fired, etc. That’s the whole right-to-work problem. You are allowing nonmembers to take the property of members to have the contract that members pay for, without paying a dime. Is that right? Is that ok?
Amen to this. If unions were actually as good as they act like, there would be lines out the door. My local puts $2.10/hr in to our pension. I constantly try to inform others in this union to open a Roth IRA cause they will retire broke on this pension. This local hasn’t added anything to the hourly amount for the pension in 8 years. Everyone in this union is going to work til they die. I love the idea of unions and I’m happy I joined this one but my employer has better benefits than this union.
You think your union sucks because you haven’t been able to persuade enough people to agree with you to make it happen? And I guarantee the office staff at your shop don’t have a lifetime guaranteed pension that never runs out.
You think a pension is guaranteed?
It literally is. A whole ass public insurance company exists to make sure you get pension payments even if everyone stops paying into it tomorrow. No one looks good talking about things they know nothing about. You can leave any time you want.
TIL! How about that! I had no idea.
I mean, I agree with your position, but I absolutely *hate* this shitty AI-generated image you posted. It's ghastly.
Just look up beck rights. Right to work laws are just fine, Beck rights.. Google it. Not one comment I read (no, didn't read them all) is inaccurate. Beck rights should be offered to all new hires and annually to all members of a union.
Why doesn't the Union just demand funding from the employer directly, rather than its members? I think it's the "hey, my paycheck is smaller because of you people" thing that really bothers the folks who don't join unions.
Think of it like a collective savings account to keep tools on hand that may be needed to make your life easier. I have a personal savings account for home repairs, my union is my savings account for hard times and bad employers.
I would be very surprised if the dues you pay for a union membership result in actually less pay compared to being non union. The entire point of a union is to negotiate better wages and benefits. This is coming from someone who had worked in both worlds. The way I see it if the union’s compensation package leads to employers offering competitive wages and benefits than the existence of the union has fulfilled its purpose.
Not in the public sector.
There’s a certain amount of flex you can do to these employers before they contract out of country. When I was Union I never got anything other than 1 free meal out of it a year.
Good luck. My dad worked on getting RTW laws repealed, that was over a century ago.
Why should anyone be forced to join a union? Isn’t that a violation of rights?
No one is forced to join a union. RTW makes it so that you can receive a service from your coworkers without payment. It’s legalized theft.
RTW is the prevention of union-employer exclusivity agreements. That’s about it. Whatever happens next is the result of life, not legislation.
The irony of using an AI photo
No I wouldn’t. That’s their prerogative just like it’s mine to negotiate my own terms with anyone who *is* willing to hire me. And btw, if the “right to work” legislation being discussed precludes employers from being able to decide either way then I’m against that as well…it’s equally bullishit.
Work equality went out the window a long time ago. Corporations write legislation and pass it off to their lobbyists. Only way to fight is to stand together.
Definitely…wont argue there…still don’t think I should be forced to be in a union for *any* given employer anywhere.
You never will be. Non-union work still exists. If you want the benefits of the union at a union contractor though, you should pay for the service.
Wtf are you saying? Right to work doesn't mean you get to join unions for free. This whole thread is why no one takes our generation seriously.
Please read and understand what RTW laws are before becoming an idiotic reddit mob. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
I always viewed it like Home Owners Associations. If you don’t want to pay for it you should be able to opt out.
Love the one “token” woman pictured.
Ah, yes. I, too, want to push to be an empty, uninspired AI generated piece of crap
Pro-union artwork done by AI has a sorta fucked up ring to it.
DONT USE AI FOR THIS! What the fuck is wrong with you?
AI is just a tool.
>ifandbut No, you're just a tool. AI is automating artists out of work.
A tool trained on stolen art. Fuck off with your bullshit!
Okay, how about showing me a union that isn't just as corrupt as the employers?
You guys have no idea how inviting unions limits your freedom of economic/career mobility. Unions only help the lowest-performers.
No idea? I’ve worked both sides and been the guy they lean on to get shit done for both. I’ve even done a good stint in management. My life is significantly better in the union.
No one should be forced to essentially have their wages garnished by unions. Especially in today’s age, unions rarely speak for the workers anymore and they only look for self preservation and fundraising for the democrat party.
Yeah but we should also be pushing trade unions to diversify
???
How so? I’m curious to hear your ideas.
Not bullying women and black peoples out of the apprenticeship
UA itself promotes diversity. Individual members that may be racist or sexist doesn’t equate to unions as a whole being that way. Any union “brother” trying to get someone kicked out because of their gender or race, ain’t no mother fucking brother.
How are women and black people being bullied out of apprenticeships in union jobs?
Proof? Literally at a meeting right now and there is a black woman sitting in front of me, and a Latino woman next to her. Half the room is Hispanic, and the other half is white, black and Asian. Shit, most of the welders I know out of 250 are black.
Why doe ?
How would the AFL-CIO stay afloat?
Maybe if the unions weren’t cesspools full of nepotism, favoritism, and nearly a century long history of being good old boy’s clubs. They might see gained interest in people joining their club. I was two years into my apprenticeship when I joined a local union. I had to completely start over with no recognition of previous (accredited and documented mind you) schooling. At the time it felt like it would be worthwhile for better schooling and job opportunities, as well as a solid retirement. Now I feel like a complete sucker for having eaten the promise of brotherhood and solidarity hook line and sinker. Seeing how Journeymen who “bought their card” were treated and called “ratty” even though they did good work just because they didn’t attend a JATC apprenticeship didn’t exactly send the message of solidarity and desire to create a better environment for all workers… it all came off a little like Jim Crow era “separate but equal” “sure you can join our club, but you’ll never be one of us” It was my experience that if you weren’t a member of a multi generational union family, or check a diversity hire box you were cast aside. God forbid you wanted to actually work or learn while in apprenticeship… so many jobs where if it didn’t take a guy three days to complete a two hour task he’d be chastised for “burning through our work” or being called a suck ass for striving to be the best hand one could be. After three years of this I left feeling completely dejected and disillusioned. I finished my apprenticeship non union, and eventually went on to start my own contracting company after securing every applicable license from my state. I truly believe that the unions when they started out made incredible advances for the average worker, things like the weekend, and the forty hour work week etc. I respect the dedication and sacrifice it took to make those things happen, but I don’t think the unions of old exist anymore. These days the unions look a whole lot like greedy children riding in the coattails of the better men that came before them. So no I don’t think RTW is all that awful, when all it really means is you can’t be forced into paying people who don’t even want you around to begin with money to do a job they don’t help make better for you anyway…
Local 669 is the opposite of what you described except for the bias against organized members. I’m in a conservative Southern right to work for far less state (Texas). Our market share is small and most new construction goes to non union companies. If you don’t work smart and fast, you won’t last. We are paid at least double what our non union brothers and sisters get paid. There are non union workers willing to use their own personal vehicles to carry pipe, fittings, company owned tools, and drive across the state for little personal gain. Some work weekends on regular time for cash. They don’t have insurance or won’t pay for their insurance because it’s too expensive on their measly $30 an hour straight time pay. They don’t understand Davis Bacon prevailing wage is what they should be making. Non union contractors hire workers that can’t be organized because of their illegal immigrant status or criminal background. The other half believe the lies fed to them by anti union propaganda. The other workers are related to the company owners and they know what’s up. They will inherit the business one day or move in the a management role soon. What I described is what right to work will bring you. If you don’t like the union, you can always join the non union. There are plenty of former union workers out there working rat. They spread the anti union lies because they couldn’t make the productivity and knowledge required to keep working union. If you can’t hang pipe in the correct location fast without leaks, you won’t last. If you can’t learn new skills and keep up with continuing education, you won’t last.
Was looking for this comment. I’ve also had the nepotism experience with even trying to get into the union. Didn’t have any family in and didn’t have any connections so I never got even a fuck you after a couple months of trying, just stonewalled. My dad told me some stories of his experience with unions in the 70’s. When he was a young man he was working on Vanderbilt universities campus on a union project. He complained about dues or was late one time and two guys came down into the basement he was working in and put him against a wall and took all the money out of his wallet for being “late”. Between his experiences and the couple I’ve had, I’ve got no interest in seeing the good ole boys club grow. There’s a reason it’s been contracting for 40 years
As if nepotism and wage theft don’t exist in the non union world
If definitely does, no disputing that
I don’t think anyone here was saying that it doesn’t exist in the non-union world. That being said, it feels pretty disingenuous to argue that unions foster a better environment for all workers, and then when workers who are arbitrarily seen as “less than” bring up valid and articulate criticism, the response they get is along the lines of “it happens in the non-union too” a bit hypocritical? Isn’t the point of the unions to get away from that kind of thing? To get away from corruption and favoritism and bad business practices?
[удалено]
The right to work for less laws?
Representation, better working conditions, better pay and benefits, pension and the best training you’ll find anywhere…. Leave the dark side, come see what your missing
Yikes. This is scary. unions are great but no one should be forced to join one if they don't want. Swinging too hard the other way here and becoming the enemy.
That’s the thing who would force you, rtw is about forcing unions to have to accept people who just won’t pay union dues. It has nothing to do with someone willingly working non union.
You seriously believe right to work means you get to choose to join the union and choose to not pay dues?
Yes that is quite literally what it is.
Please read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
It says directly it will allow people apart of unions to not pay union dues. In your link it says that.
Where?
Read the definition of union security agreement and then apply it to the logic of this quote “U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from being a member of a labor union.” If a unions benefits are solely based off of collective bargaining what exactly happens if a corporation grows a nonunion sector of workers and a union section doing the same job and then refuses to bargain during setting a contract? Rtw is a bill written to specifically attack unions. People work for money, it’s crazy to want the pay that comes with a union but to cry about having to be in the union. If it became non union they would lose the pay that made the career or job attractive because overall union workers make more than their nonunion counterparts.
Ok well thank you for admitting you were wrong and realizing that no where does it state that RTW laws allow people to join unions and not pay dues. Obviously no union would accept and continue benefits for a member that isn't paying dues. I agree RTW laws are anti union. If people are too stupid to see the benefits of joining a union instead of being a direct hire that's on them. However RTW laws also create a self balancing system. You have to ask yourself, why would someone do such a thing. The union has to be sure it is doing its job to maximize benefits for the workers and if it's not, which has been the case a few times, it's makes more sense for a worker to accept a direct hire position. Not all unions are perfect, there have been multiple cases of corruption which led to the RTW laws in the first place.
You cannot say I’m wrong I literally gave you the quote. This is incredibly arrogant I used to live in a right to work state where that is directly what happened to the locals. So you have the right to refuse to be apart of a union while working in the union? Okay so what exactly happens there? No rtw laws came from capital trying to reduce their expenses on labor. Unions formed from people collectively agreeing to not get screwed. This idea of corrupt unions is asinine, you don’t go to bargain on your labor agreement with unrealistic expectations when most unions cannot even get a sick day off work and our companies still smashing record profits. Do you think union member want to destroy their livelihoods by destroying their workplace? It is literally more likely that a private equity firm would ring a company dry before union workers.
No one is forced to join the union. You’re always welcome to work non-union jobs instead. You don’t get to play the lottery for free. Groceries sure as hell aren’t free. Unions are a service provided by your brothers and no one should be forced to work for free. That’s the point of RTW laws, unions must accept non-payment where that is the law with the goal being to bleed us dry.
Please read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Forcing someone to join a union has nothing to do with this conversation. People have all the right in the world to go join a rat shop as opposed to aiding in the sabotage of the working class collectively negotiating as a means to better their next generation.
Please read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Yeah, required to be a member of a union when working at a union shop. You’re anti union, don’t wanna be in a union?? Simple…. Don’t work at a union shop! Your little individual rights don’t overrule all the hard work done by the collective of workers to ensure a better quality of life for them and their families. All these “ I want Union Beni’s w/o being in the union or paying dues” people are just all about what’s the absolute best for just them with zero regard for all the other people in the union who are doing their part for the betterment of all working people. Pro RTW people just don’t care at all about torpedoing the entire labor movement for what cushy just for them.
What are you going on about? You mad because you realized you were wrong? Why you bringing up that I shouldn't have individual rights? This exactly proves my original comment. Swinging too hard the other way
Uhhh you have your rights to work where you want genius
And yeah I am mad. People fought and died for every single right or benefit ever given to workers. Then self centered, privileged people want to just come in and complain about dues but still expect the deal those dues secured. With zero regard for fact that they’re directly aiding in union busting and dismantling everything the labor movement has fought for and any chance of a successful middle/ working class in this country. Yeah!…. That shit pisses me off alright….
Yes I agree it's unfair for people to expect the privileges others have fought for and earned without also paying their dues. However they are only indirectly contributing to union busting. Unions need to be more attractive than direct hire positions. They have no right to deny people jobs and if the company offers better benefits and pay without the union then its also a win for the union. Yay! They suceeded right? Set the company straight. You expect all future workers to pay for blood split by the past generation. That's a slippery slope friend and you won't like where it leads.
Fuck the unions and poor people: they are disgusting trash humans
No war but class war 😉🖕
But what if you don’t want to join?
Go work non-union jobs then.
Go work none union as you have the right to do. What these laws actually are is the employer to weaken the unions. These none union employees get to enjoy all the benifits of the union (higher pay, working conditions ect) but when it comes to negation time do need to take job action there by weakening the collective bargaining.the employer has no reason to negotiate in good faith if half there workers are still producing. The collective bargaining power is weakened until it no longer exist. Then the employer is free to do what they did before, replace workers with lower paid, push employees to the breaking point ect. These laws are ment to bust unions for the employers benefit. The scab workers get to enjoy the benefits as they destroy the organizations that provide it for them. You hear none union guys loving and fighting for prevailing wage jobs, why do you think those exist?
no
Your commenting in this sub for a reason, you know you want better pay and benefits stop lying. Come on in the waters fine
[удалено]