There are no minorities in the photo with Governor Scott Walker. There are barely any women. I wonder if they asked those folks what they think about bogus RTW laws?
5
Amazing how all the bloggers here fail to acknowledge historical facts:
Private sector unions have destroyed most of the industries they organized, via overplaying their hand, along with obscene corruption, with costly work rules that brought on and then encouraged automation land the movement of the industries to lower cost locations. In the long run, they were no friend of workers. Otherwise, it's obvious that the workers would still want to be unionized. The fact that they don't reflects on the unions alone.
The only reason public unions exist is the illicit relationship between government negotiated contracts and union support of politicians from union dues, often spent by the union bosses on things the union members don't support.
As so many government unions have negotiated monetarily untenable benefits, particularly retirement pay, responsible politicians of all stripes must push back and try to regain control, just to prevent huge deficit spending.
Private sector unions have destroyed most of the industries they organized, via overplaying their hand, along with obscene corruption, with costly work rules that brought on and then encouraged automation land the movement of the industries to lower cost locations. In the long run, they were no friend of workers. Otherwise, it's obvious that the workers would still want to be unionized. The fact that they don't reflects on the unions alone.
The only reason public unions exist is the illicit relationship between government negotiated contracts and union support of politicians from union dues, often spent by the union bosses on things the union members don't support.
As so many government unions have negotiated monetarily untenable benefits, particularly retirement pay, responsible politicians of all stripes must push back and try to regain control, just to prevent huge deficit spending.
1
Imagine, a country where people are allowed to practice 'free will', a human right bestowed at birth. How refreshing. Who knew..?
My guess is that 99% of the people who are for this law are going to lose financially from it. And that 99% of them lose to America's tax laws: higher taxes on work than on passive investments. Being this naive turns one into a sucker.
People who have more money smirk in their sleeves as they get richer and you get poorer.
If you want to work this group up to self-destructive activity, just toss out words like "freedom". "Freedom to Work" is a phrase worthy of George Orwell. My lord, those liberals don't want us to work. What nonsense.
People who have more money smirk in their sleeves as they get richer and you get poorer.
If you want to work this group up to self-destructive activity, just toss out words like "freedom". "Freedom to Work" is a phrase worthy of George Orwell. My lord, those liberals don't want us to work. What nonsense.
7
It's truly astonishing how little most voters know of labor history in this country. As the big corporations continue to depress wages and go overseas for yet cheaper labor, they have finally defeated the notion of a "closed shop" in which businesses and labor unions agree to work together for the benefit of all.
Divide and conquer. An amazing testament to the power of money in this country. Amen and amen.
Divide and conquer. An amazing testament to the power of money in this country. Amen and amen.
8
What would happen if laws discouraged antagonism between companies and workers? Can't believe I wrote that. What if all men were angels?
A few workers may be no-good bums, but most would eagerly make quality products that customers wanted. But they cannot approach work as an unpaid hobby. Customers who value a certain product find it easy to use, easy to fix, and reliable.
Companies should worry about getting, satisfying and keeping domestic and international customers. A company that puts customers 1st, employees 2d, and shareholders 3d will do well. Shareholders always get any residual and likely knew that when they bought stock. 3d is pretty good when the company does well.
But nobody beats people at the bottom, with at least 3 to 5 years experience, in knowing good ways to save steps, maintain or raise quality or to enhance customer experience with the company. Smart companies do not fire workers who find economies.
Both workers AND management have a big stake in keeping their jobs. Municipalities have a big stake in the company's prosperity.
A few workers may be no-good bums, but most would eagerly make quality products that customers wanted. But they cannot approach work as an unpaid hobby. Customers who value a certain product find it easy to use, easy to fix, and reliable.
Companies should worry about getting, satisfying and keeping domestic and international customers. A company that puts customers 1st, employees 2d, and shareholders 3d will do well. Shareholders always get any residual and likely knew that when they bought stock. 3d is pretty good when the company does well.
But nobody beats people at the bottom, with at least 3 to 5 years experience, in knowing good ways to save steps, maintain or raise quality or to enhance customer experience with the company. Smart companies do not fire workers who find economies.
Both workers AND management have a big stake in keeping their jobs. Municipalities have a big stake in the company's prosperity.
2
Judging from many of the comments one would think this law bans unions. A union can have every bit as much as clout with an employer after the law as it did before, but not as much with the employees, which is a good thing, a step towards democracy, I would say.
It may be that unions were able to increase workers compensation at one time, but now it is arguable they have had the effect of increasing unemployment and reducing compensation by driving away employers in many industries.
A person who favored the interests of workers over employers could support this legislation whole-heartedly. The secret to long term financial security for the average worker lies in creating an economy that maximizes employment opportunities and generally provides full employment, which is what this law will promote.
It may be that unions were able to increase workers compensation at one time, but now it is arguable they have had the effect of increasing unemployment and reducing compensation by driving away employers in many industries.
A person who favored the interests of workers over employers could support this legislation whole-heartedly. The secret to long term financial security for the average worker lies in creating an economy that maximizes employment opportunities and generally provides full employment, which is what this law will promote.
2
This is a good move, but an even better one would be federal right-to-work legislation which would repeal the Depression era privileges granted to Big Labor.
2
Peter, you are watching far too much Fox News because there are no real "privileges" for unions these days.
8
Out democracy depends on reasonable balance to succeed, in politics, economics and cultural practices. In economics, the pendulum swung from awful management exploitation of workers and other bad practices circa 1900, to strong unions in the post WW2 era (the need for unions well understood by the average neutral person), to today's double whammy on union power--first, too often management, especially in the public sphere, has irresponsibly approved union pension, work rule and tenure demands, topped off by greedy bonus levels for top managers, to the detriment of entities like General Motors and California. Second, unions themselves too often forgot that, for the mixed economy system to work (as it does in Finland and Germany), both management and unions must act responsibly and think long term.
We see the middle class dying now (trickle down economics works only for the rich--amazing how the rich get the non rich to vote for policies that favor the rich).
In a decade or two, if we are still a democracy, and have not been further gerrymandered out of having competitive politics, when conditions for the average person are bad enough, the pendulum will start to swing the other way (I hope). If not, only the rich will be able to afford to hire body guards for their families to travel outside their gated residences.
We see the middle class dying now (trickle down economics works only for the rich--amazing how the rich get the non rich to vote for policies that favor the rich).
In a decade or two, if we are still a democracy, and have not been further gerrymandered out of having competitive politics, when conditions for the average person are bad enough, the pendulum will start to swing the other way (I hope). If not, only the rich will be able to afford to hire body guards for their families to travel outside their gated residences.
5
Oregon is a blue state with strong teacher's unions... yet Oregon rates 41st in the nation for education ... the teacher's union has done nothing to help Oregon's education system for the students, but it does help the teachers that would otherwise be fired for incompetence without the unions protection... In Oregon, it takes an act of God to get rid of bad teachers, and there are a lot of other teachers that are just "coasting" until they can take early retirement... these "coasting" teachers discourage students from the love of learning, and these students are more apt to drop out of school... the teachers union protects these teachers from getting fired, and instead they are moved to another school... the teachers union has essentially destroyed the education system in Oregon, and any parent with school age children living in Oregon I would recommend getting your kids in a private school, or a charter school if possible... Oregon needs the same right to work law as Wisconsin has, only then will Oregon students have a chance for a good education...
1
Seems to me you need to go back to school.
How does being ranked 18th in high school graduation translate to being number 41?
How does being ranked 18th in high school graduation translate to being number 41?
3
Unions are a way for workers,to receive more compensation,than they are worth,in a free market.Just ends up hurting those not in the union.If everyone was unionized,it would be a wash and no one would benefit.
We get the government that we are willingly hoodwinked by ads to elect. Ads paid for by billionaires who are destroying the middle class in America .
9
President Walker? Not in this country.
5
I'm a bit confused, Sargent of the Dem Campaign Committee said the measure was "designed to depress wages and help the Republicans win more elections in the future"..
Aren't those two notions mutually exclusive? My understanding is, as your wages decline, your likelihood to vote for a Democrat INCREASES, not decreases.
Interesting.
WR
Aren't those two notions mutually exclusive? My understanding is, as your wages decline, your likelihood to vote for a Democrat INCREASES, not decreases.
Interesting.
WR
Advertising paid for by billionaires always wins. Keep that in mind. The power of lies over media!
5
As someone who has worked in both union and non-union shops I can tell you I will take union shops every time.
Anyone who has spent any significant time working at a manufacturing job, or even retail and food services, will tell you that business owners and managers could give a rat's behind about their employees--they care only when it is good PR to do so. It all comes down to a business owners bottom line (pun intended). If someone can make a few more bucks by unfairly cutting wages, hours, or even taking shortcuts with worker safety, they will do it every time.
As someone has commented below, overall support for these measures appears to be coming from the very people the laws will harm in the long run. Otherwise Walker would have been gone a long time ago. Remember, 99% of us are one layoff away from working at WalMart, Burger King, and the like.
I guess we get the government we deserve.
Anyone who has spent any significant time working at a manufacturing job, or even retail and food services, will tell you that business owners and managers could give a rat's behind about their employees--they care only when it is good PR to do so. It all comes down to a business owners bottom line (pun intended). If someone can make a few more bucks by unfairly cutting wages, hours, or even taking shortcuts with worker safety, they will do it every time.
As someone has commented below, overall support for these measures appears to be coming from the very people the laws will harm in the long run. Otherwise Walker would have been gone a long time ago. Remember, 99% of us are one layoff away from working at WalMart, Burger King, and the like.
I guess we get the government we deserve.
22
This is not about workers' rights. It is about the campaign coffers of the Democratic party. Works should have the right to determine which candidates their dues will support. Collective bargaining should be about wages and benefits, not about supporting a political party.
2
Imagine a scenario where union dues were invariably used to support political campaigns of conservative Republicans.
Does your opinion on the matter change under that scenario?
Does your opinion on the matter change under that scenario?
2
But the people in Wisconsin don't want no living wages! They don't want no health care either!
5
Something about how people weave the noose that will be used to hang them.
Greed mixed with a lack of memory and foresight are the building blocks of today's republican voters mind.
Greed mixed with a lack of memory and foresight are the building blocks of today's republican voters mind.
4
The wage stagnation our country has been enduring (for decades now) is necessary, or so whisper the Ivy League advisers to our leaders. Because we now live in a global economy, American workers will just have to come to terms with the idea that they are not, in fact, any more worthy of support from American companies than workers in China or India. When the middle class finally hits the rocky wage bottom, maybe our factories will come home, if factories still exist then.
What all us suckers need to realize, is that Washington DC, Wall Street, the Corporations, the corporate media, and the Ivy League suits are all complicit in letting our workers continue to circle the drain. It's a feature, not a bug. Maybe they can make a buck or two off of us before we go down.
What all us suckers need to realize, is that Washington DC, Wall Street, the Corporations, the corporate media, and the Ivy League suits are all complicit in letting our workers continue to circle the drain. It's a feature, not a bug. Maybe they can make a buck or two off of us before we go down.
6
All Im going to say on this is when 2016 comes I hope people who are against this GOP agenda get out and vote and show their displeasure..unfortunately that Gruber guy was spot on..there are "dumb" voters galore in this country..the fact that the do nothing Congress swept back into office in the mid terms proves that...our voting power has been stripped via voter id laws, Citizen's United, Gerrymandering districts..all Republican initiatives..if you to dumb to see the pattern then congratulations, you one of those "stupid voters" the man was talking about and this is no dem/repub thing either..these Repub initiatives are bad for everybody and our country..just the braindead Repub constituents are ok with it cause their side is "winning"...yea ok..wait till these same laws turn and favor the Dems..then we will see the rush by the hypocrites on the right to change things..smh
2
Note to governor Walker.
I know the GOP primaries are a few months away but you definitely need to raise your game to a higher level.
You may wish to search for and employ(temporarily at minimum wage) some minority folks the next time you sign a bill and have a major photo opportunity. Noe amongst the 2 dozen in the picture.
Also, just a couple of women in the photo.
Also, no worker bees in the photo just "suits."
Gotta do better dude if you want to score votes.
I know the GOP primaries are a few months away but you definitely need to raise your game to a higher level.
You may wish to search for and employ(temporarily at minimum wage) some minority folks the next time you sign a bill and have a major photo opportunity. Noe amongst the 2 dozen in the picture.
Also, just a couple of women in the photo.
Also, no worker bees in the photo just "suits."
Gotta do better dude if you want to score votes.
2
It seems the American middle class is bound and determined to vote itself out of existence. A couple more Republican presidencies should do it.
8
Governor Walker has spoken truth to power and preserved the constitutional right of free association. If Deblasio and Cuomo had such courage NY would not be strangled with such high taxes to pay the legacy costs of government employees. It could reverse the outflow of jobs and taxpayers.
2
Yeah. New Yorkers especially do not need living wage jobs! Part-time temporary low wage jobs for all! That'll make US prosperous once again! Don't worry -- you will get exactly what you want.
4
Since 1933 and well beyond, the FDR move to strenghten union power, has energized the private sector to resist its implementation at all cost.
Fast forward to today's congressional denial for governance and it is a colossal no brainer to connect the dots for all of the repugnant denier's anti-liberal, anti-progressive, anti-labor game plan to defang the middle-class' hard fought assumption of economic power.
Nothing new here. Especially gauling, however, is the SCOTUS rulings on the old game of the dominance of big money influencing the political process. So really, until and unless the polity reverses its self defeating behavior of voting against its own best interests, and in the absence of a Franklin D. Roosevelt presidency, nothing will change--the Status Quo of today's 21st century has sadly morphed from the E Pluribus Unum of the 1940s-1970s.
Fast forward to today's congressional denial for governance and it is a colossal no brainer to connect the dots for all of the repugnant denier's anti-liberal, anti-progressive, anti-labor game plan to defang the middle-class' hard fought assumption of economic power.
Nothing new here. Especially gauling, however, is the SCOTUS rulings on the old game of the dominance of big money influencing the political process. So really, until and unless the polity reverses its self defeating behavior of voting against its own best interests, and in the absence of a Franklin D. Roosevelt presidency, nothing will change--the Status Quo of today's 21st century has sadly morphed from the E Pluribus Unum of the 1940s-1970s.
5
"weakening the labor groups that have traditionally provided muscle and money to Democratic candidates in crucial swing states."
That is the crux of it.
The corrupt unions are nothing but Democratic Party political machines. They dont give a hoot about individual workers. Hard work and ambition are discouraged by unions...they want helpless poodles who just take what the all-powerful unions give to them.
Look at the pro-union commenters...who insult workers as helpless , and claim they cant rise on their own merits without a union...
That is the crux of it.
The corrupt unions are nothing but Democratic Party political machines. They dont give a hoot about individual workers. Hard work and ambition are discouraged by unions...they want helpless poodles who just take what the all-powerful unions give to them.
Look at the pro-union commenters...who insult workers as helpless , and claim they cant rise on their own merits without a union...
3
The naive arrogance of your belief in yourself is both sad and comforting. You will get your just deserts by and by the sad part is that you will create harm for countless numbers of people who work around you on the way to that end.
The GOP could get Union support if they gave a darn about working people and did something to help them. They don't and they won't. The Grand Old Party is strictly for people that hate commoners and the ignorant commoners who somehow do not see the harm the GOP does them.
The GOP could get Union support if they gave a darn about working people and did something to help them. They don't and they won't. The Grand Old Party is strictly for people that hate commoners and the ignorant commoners who somehow do not see the harm the GOP does them.
3
Obviously one worker is no match for billionaire capitalists. Don't you worry: it's a race to the bottom! The middle class is slowly -- but surely -- being eviscerated. That's good, right?
2
Why not force people to join or pay dues to organizations which they oppose; who needs the troublesome, outdated First Amendment of the US Constitution which protects rights of association and belief as well as similarly silly and inconsequential rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition?
Shouldn't all gun owners be required to join or pay dues to the NRA since it supports gun rights for all, including those ungrateful free-riders? Positive opportunities such as that are boundless!
Our sublimely cool, au courant President Obama has informed us that our inadequate, non-trendy Constitution has not yet been interpreted to provide for wealth redistribution. Even worse, it's just a "charter of negative liberties" which needlessly and harmfully restrains the government. And when the government wants to prop up unions, the NRA, etc., how dare we object? Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/sep/19/picketaudio-...
Shouldn't all gun owners be required to join or pay dues to the NRA since it supports gun rights for all, including those ungrateful free-riders? Positive opportunities such as that are boundless!
Our sublimely cool, au courant President Obama has informed us that our inadequate, non-trendy Constitution has not yet been interpreted to provide for wealth redistribution. Even worse, it's just a "charter of negative liberties" which needlessly and harmfully restrains the government. And when the government wants to prop up unions, the NRA, etc., how dare we object? Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/sep/19/picketaudio-...
No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything. The people who are objecting to paying dues either do not comprehend how the Union works, feel slighted by some interaction with it, or simply want to undermine it.
The "Union" is not forcing itself upon people who were working at a place that had no Union, the people who don't want to pay dues apparently mainly because Unions donate to DEM pols, are applying then coming to work at Union shops and then saying they don't want to pay them while getting all the benefit and protection of a Union. This is almost the exact same sort of dishonest parsing of how money is spent as the GOP uses to hamstring our government.
The DEM pols create and vote for legislation that supports working people, why would a working person object to that?
It is a dishonest proposition on the face of it. How does one come to want to work at a Union shop if one objects to Unions? How is it one can justify not paying for the services rendered by the union?
The "Union" is not forcing itself upon people who were working at a place that had no Union, the people who don't want to pay dues apparently mainly because Unions donate to DEM pols, are applying then coming to work at Union shops and then saying they don't want to pay them while getting all the benefit and protection of a Union. This is almost the exact same sort of dishonest parsing of how money is spent as the GOP uses to hamstring our government.
The DEM pols create and vote for legislation that supports working people, why would a working person object to that?
It is a dishonest proposition on the face of it. How does one come to want to work at a Union shop if one objects to Unions? How is it one can justify not paying for the services rendered by the union?
5
Thank you, Governor Walker, for adding Wisconsin to the growing list of states where it is now everyone's right to work for less. The history of labor in the U.S. is a story of a struggle for most of what workers enjoy today. This move by Walker goes along nicely with his reducing funding for the U of Wisconsin. After all, uneducated people don't know much about history, nor do they know when they are on a down hill slide to an earlier era when labor unions fought for them.
7
If you currently enjoy the comforts associated with being in the middle class, thank a union. If in the future you are fired because someone in management doesn't like the color of your hair, thank Scott Walker and other Republicans Without unions workers simply have no one to advocate for them. The power rests solely with the employer.
Viewing the Right to Work Law as simply a choice on joining and not joining a union is a very simplistic understanding of the law. Only after people have suffered the consequences of the law will they begin to understand why a significant number of states who already have the law are finding themselves or are beginning to find themselves with high levels of poverty.
Viewing the Right to Work Law as simply a choice on joining and not joining a union is a very simplistic understanding of the law. Only after people have suffered the consequences of the law will they begin to understand why a significant number of states who already have the law are finding themselves or are beginning to find themselves with high levels of poverty.
6
Here's how I'd write the headline:
Workers Joyful Over Win Against Unions.
Shocking the Times feels the Unions are suffering.
Workers Joyful Over Win Against Unions.
Shocking the Times feels the Unions are suffering.
Now workers can work for less! Yea!
2
Unions have only themselves to blame for their decline in recent decades. They have gone from representing workers to representing only the union itself. That was represented by a recent case where a union signed a contract with an employer that provided no change in salary or benefits. What it did do was get recognition of the union and the collection of dues from employees.
Unions are an anachronism today. The only people who need a union are those who are not competent to succeed on their own merit.
Unions are an anachronism today. The only people who need a union are those who are not competent to succeed on their own merit.
3
I suspect that unions would not be in decline if they had not become the champion of the worst of their membership.
I worked in a union shop for a short time and was amazed at the time and energy the union spent on protecting the most blatant slackers and thieves. Their other focus was to make the work force as unproductive as possible.
I believe that unions are a necessary evil in many settings. Further, non-union workers benefit from the threat of unionization. However, It is a puzzle why the feel the need to poison their reputation by these actions.
I worked in a union shop for a short time and was amazed at the time and energy the union spent on protecting the most blatant slackers and thieves. Their other focus was to make the work force as unproductive as possible.
I believe that unions are a necessary evil in many settings. Further, non-union workers benefit from the threat of unionization. However, It is a puzzle why the feel the need to poison their reputation by these actions.
3
Unions lose when your opening line is -- "forcing all workers to pay union dues or fees."
Instead of the neutral "requiring all workers" you have adopted the right-wing framing which is going to destroy not only organized labor – including the jobs in the few organized newspapers – but also the very existence of the middle class.
Instead of the neutral "requiring all workers" you have adopted the right-wing framing which is going to destroy not only organized labor – including the jobs in the few organized newspapers – but also the very existence of the middle class.
2
Wisconsin Democrats say the right-to-work law is a Republican plot to depress wages in order to win elections. Why do they think Republicans would reason that depressing wages will win them votes? The popularity of the law suggests that a majority of Wisconsonites consider it to be of positive benefit to the state.
3
Because the "plot" part of it is that they lie to the folks who vote against their own best interests to get that vote, and lets face it <%25 than union wages and no benefits is a lot of money to someone making minimum wage. Which is yet another reason the GOP doesn't want to raise the minimum wage. If those same people were more economically stable due to being paid fairly they would not allow themselves to succumb to the bait of a "higher" wage which is actually a lot less than it should be.
3
Walker continues to win elections because the people want the right to work. Peo
1
Right to work for less. Yep. That's what people want.
3
The real problem is that unions are not doing a good enough job to show why they are truly needed. As there is less manufacturing in this country, the union leaders of old have not reacted to the changing climate in this country. They need to extol the benefits of joining and what joining will do for Joe sixpack. If they cannot do that, they will die on the vine.
3
How can a conservative be so much in favor of more government regulation and control?
There is no need for a law like this. Let the issue be resolved between the employers and the employees. There is no legal requirement now to pay union dues, only an agreement between a company and the union representing their employees. If the company doesn't agree with the requirement of paying for union support then the company is free to simply say "NO" to such an issue in the contract.
Keep the government out of more restrictive laws and control. This issue should be resolved across the bargaining table, not in the legislature.
There is no need for a law like this. Let the issue be resolved between the employers and the employees. There is no legal requirement now to pay union dues, only an agreement between a company and the union representing their employees. If the company doesn't agree with the requirement of paying for union support then the company is free to simply say "NO" to such an issue in the contract.
Keep the government out of more restrictive laws and control. This issue should be resolved across the bargaining table, not in the legislature.
3
Call it "right to work" if you want, but politicians put clever names to hide their intentions. Look at the Patriot Act. Even if workers in "right to work" states don't pay their dues, the union still needs to protect that individual. The person who chooses to not pay union dues is still provided the protection of the union. Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that companies look out for their own interest at the expense of the worker. It is no coincidence that median income and wages are stagnant and/or depressed and union membership is down significantly. American middle class was built by unions, and as the unions dies so does the middle class.
Look no further than Boeing, who had a workforce backed by the union. Despite record profits and record manufacturing (much through government contracts and billions in tax breaks), they wanted the union members to pay more for their health insurance and take a lesser raise. They threatened to go to the "right to work state," where the workers will make much less money and have to pay more for health insurance. In a free market, who protects the workers and people?
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/06/nation/la-na-boeing-union-fight-...
Look no further than Boeing, who had a workforce backed by the union. Despite record profits and record manufacturing (much through government contracts and billions in tax breaks), they wanted the union members to pay more for their health insurance and take a lesser raise. They threatened to go to the "right to work state," where the workers will make much less money and have to pay more for health insurance. In a free market, who protects the workers and people?
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/06/nation/la-na-boeing-union-fight-...
5
If union negotiated contracts are beneficial, then everybody will pay dues and fees happily. Why does anybody has to be forced to pay?
1
No one is being forced that is the GOP lie. It is a requirement to pay for the services the Union provides and those who do not understand Unions object to paying for that service. A lot of it is GOP preaching about how the Union movement donates exclusively to DEM's, a fact they could change by being worker friendly themselves, and because people who do not comprehend what unions do when you don't see them in action simply assume from an "out of sight out of mind" POV that the "Union" isn't doing anything for them. Or they run into a situation that Unions do not cover then get mad at them for it because they had incorrectly assumed they would.
The "problem" with Unions is not Unions it is ignorance and the abuse of same by the GOP.
The "problem" with Unions is not Unions it is ignorance and the abuse of same by the GOP.
6
Because there are moochers everywhere, Woody.
3
Do not confuse the public workers' unions with the private sector unions. When public worker unions negotiate with their employers, the taxpayer (the one ultimately paying the wages) is not represented at the bargaining table.
4
Do you know (and have a say in) where all your tax dollars go? It doesn't work that way.
1
What? Then who do you think they negotiate with if not the State? Unions represent workers/labor. Why should teachers, who are notoriously treated worse in America than in any other developed nation, not deserve the modicum of bargaining power that a union provides? They don't deserve the lesser-class treatment they're getting, but why should anyone expect more when their own governor compares them to radical terrorists.
2
That signing picture speaks a thousand words..all white & a few white women...what are they afraid of that they must do this to the workers of Wisconsin? The glee on their faces is nauseating
5
No one in their right mind would consider legislation that essentially undermines employee bargaining power a "right to work". How easily people forget why unions exist and how wages will simply go into free-fall without them. There is zero upside, unless of course you happen to be an employer and think punishing your employees with lower wages is a good idea.
6
The reporter said "...so-called right to work law" ...I beg to differ it's the "right to work law"....subconscious bias by the reporter? I wonder
1
Republicans really have a very serious Koch problem. They do their bidding to the detriment of the 99%. How shameful. Scott Walker would be a no one if he wasn't reared as a Koch acolyte. Hey, republicans, kick your Koch habit and start to stand with the rest of America. As unions declined so did wage growth. There is a correlation.
3
I live in Indiana and all the bill did was allow companies to move here and pay the average worker $10.00 an hour. Tell me can you raise a family on that amount of money per week? Yes you have a choice but at 10 an hour you don't make enough to even consider it because every penny counts. I can also tell you that the work I do allows me to go into manufacturing plants all over the state and it's a sad situation. People are forced to work 12 hour shifts 6-7 days per week and it's know longer just men now it's women and that has me wondering who's raising the kids?? Honestly think it was the worst thing for the state!!!!
6
But this is what the people of Wisconsin obviously want. If workers have less money in their pockets, that's good for the economy. Sounds strange, but that's what Wisconsin citizens believe.
1
Without unions, workers have no rights, not even the to live. Every state that has passed anti-union laws have also passed laws to take away all the rights that unions fought for, even worker safety laws. Now your boss has the right to kill you with unsafe, unsanitary conditions and when he does, all that will happen to him is that he will have to pay a small settlement to your widow.
This is not hyperbole, it is an actual thing, with charts and graphs showing just how much safety equipment the owners of companies can do without before the number of dead workers become a liability.
Like Rand Paul said, miners are not worth much dead or alive so it is cheaper to forgo safety equipment and offer life insurance.
If your life isn't worth anything then you anti-union, if you want to live and keep all your limbs and digits then you better make sure you do not live in a right-to-work for peanuts and your own demise state.
This is not hyperbole, it is an actual thing, with charts and graphs showing just how much safety equipment the owners of companies can do without before the number of dead workers become a liability.
Like Rand Paul said, miners are not worth much dead or alive so it is cheaper to forgo safety equipment and offer life insurance.
If your life isn't worth anything then you anti-union, if you want to live and keep all your limbs and digits then you better make sure you do not live in a right-to-work for peanuts and your own demise state.
4
I am sure the Koch lackeys on the Supreme Court will be more than gleeful to strike down the rights of workers across the US!
Then, it will be time for a another revolution!
Then, it will be time for a another revolution!
5
So, even a "straight news" article shows such bias. Ms. Davey, it is not a "so-called" right to work law. It IS a right to work law. How is this law "anti-worker" when it leaved the decision to join or not join up to the worker? If the union makes sense to the worker and provides benefits, the worker is "free" to join. If the union is merely a dues collection group that uses its dues monies to support political activities that the worker does not agree with, then the worker has the freedom not to join? How is this "anti-worker" as Mr. Obama puts it? Sound very pro-worker and American to me.
3
You are addressing the lie that is the propaganda you are encouraged to believe and no effort is made to correct it. The idea doesn't even make sense. No nonunion shop is being forced to join or pay dues. Why would someone who opposes unions apply to work at a Union shop?
No one is being forced to do anything. Dues are required as part of employment because it pays for the service the Union rendered. How good or effective those services are will have to be judged on a case by case basis. The idea of paying for that service is valid across the board.
No one is being forced to do anything. Dues are required as part of employment because it pays for the service the Union rendered. How good or effective those services are will have to be judged on a case by case basis. The idea of paying for that service is valid across the board.
4
Public sector unions do not exemplify the labor movement. The GOP has succeeded in making public sector unions the face of organized labor. In reality, public sector unions are an exception, a once tolerated extension to the history of the labor movement.
2
Workers should enjoy the freedom of association, period. The notion that they would be blocked from employment in any field by virtue of paying union dues is an affront to loberty.
2
Ironically, there is a certain consistency in conservatives espousing these Right-to-Mooch laws. Now common workers can enjoy the benefits normally reserved for the ultra-wealthy... that is, getting something without paying for it.
4
This outrage over "the American worker" rings hollow. Millions upon millions of illegals are here working and according to the NYT they are part of the fastest growing group in this recovery. Save it.
2
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/life-after-right-work-how-one-union-flo
The position that a law guaranteeing the right to choose union membership necessarily weakens labor assumes the worst about the American worker's ethics and is a fallacy to boot.
The position that a law guaranteeing the right to choose union membership necessarily weakens labor assumes the worst about the American worker's ethics and is a fallacy to boot.
1
I've followed this story and similar union-busting, restricting, destroying ones coming out of my home state of Wisconsin.
I've voluntarily belonged to every union in any workplace I've been in. Beginning as a railroad brakeman first assigned in Berlin, Wisconsin (Green Lake County) in 1969 up to 2015 as a primary school teacher in Berlin, Germany.
Other comments have already and eloquently spoken for how beneficial union membership and activity has been for my life.
Never have I felt more respect for all the people doing and giving their best to stop this Republican fraud and attack on working people's livlihoods - and that in the name of freedom.
For the first time ever I feel embarassed and ashamed to say that I am a native of Wisconsin.
I've voluntarily belonged to every union in any workplace I've been in. Beginning as a railroad brakeman first assigned in Berlin, Wisconsin (Green Lake County) in 1969 up to 2015 as a primary school teacher in Berlin, Germany.
Other comments have already and eloquently spoken for how beneficial union membership and activity has been for my life.
Never have I felt more respect for all the people doing and giving their best to stop this Republican fraud and attack on working people's livlihoods - and that in the name of freedom.
For the first time ever I feel embarassed and ashamed to say that I am a native of Wisconsin.
6
As you said, you "voluntarily" belonged to every union in any workplace you have worked. Why can't another person "voluntarily" belong (or choose not to belong) as well? If the union is beneficial, as you believe it is, then fine. However, if it is not, why must the worker be forced to pay dues for something he doesn't believe in or support. The fraud is the argument that this is a "Republican fraud" and an "attack" on the worker, when it is the complete opposite. Freedom to choose - what is wrong with that! Worked for you, why not everyone else.
2
So let's play "gotcha".
Yes, I wrote "voluntarily". I wrote to say that I knew and supported that I was in a trade union. Further I was aware and supported that there was a dues check-off system that required all of us to contribute for representation that won labor agreements for everyone. It was unheard of that anyone refused the wages and benefits that they were entitled to as a member of that bargaining unit. Of course not.
Enjoy your race to the bottom.
Yes, I wrote "voluntarily". I wrote to say that I knew and supported that I was in a trade union. Further I was aware and supported that there was a dues check-off system that required all of us to contribute for representation that won labor agreements for everyone. It was unheard of that anyone refused the wages and benefits that they were entitled to as a member of that bargaining unit. Of course not.
Enjoy your race to the bottom.
3
If unions actually provided services that people wanted, they wouldn't be afraid of measures like this.
Union opposition to these measures makes it seem that the union is more interested in preserving the flow of money into union coffers than offering things that workers actually care about.
I mean, who's going to pay the salary of union officials when there are no members left?
Union opposition to these measures makes it seem that the union is more interested in preserving the flow of money into union coffers than offering things that workers actually care about.
I mean, who's going to pay the salary of union officials when there are no members left?
1
In the last scenes of the movie "Spartacus" the people decide to embrace the tyranny of Crassus (played by Lawrence Olivier) because he will subdue the rebels who have shaken Rome to its knees. That's how I feel when I buy Brawny Paper Towels to support Koch PAC's. Public unions are a Borg collective bankrupting cities and states and leaving a $4.5 trillion unfunded pension bill for taxpayers. I will support anybody who can stop them.
1
Unfortunately the problem starts with very low voter participation rates. When people ignore and abandon their franchise as citizens they permit actions that may be contrary to their own economic and social interests. Until Democrats take voter participation seriously this sort of Republican anti-union wave will continue. Perhaps we should adopt the Australian system and make voting mandatory with a fine levied for non-voting.
1
Perhaps unions can stop representing those who don't belong to it.
Let each non union member negotiate their wages, benefits, and working conditions on their own.
Let each non union member negotiate their wages, benefits, and working conditions on their own.
4
Walker's success in fighting unions would be a fantastic if he could carry it over to federal employees, teachers and dock workers. Our children would be served better, our government could fire people who should be fired and commerce would be free to move.
1
Well, the people of Wisconsin voted for this clown, and I hope they enjoy being part of the low-wage, no benefits, no worker protections circus.
7
So, I'm going to call the U.S. Chamber of Commerce later on today and tell them that I want to join, because I want the benefits that they provide to their membership. When they tell me the fee for joining, I'm going to say that I have no intention of paying the fees but I want the benefits of membership. When they tell me that I must pay, I am going to remind them that, because of their efforts I can get all of the benefits of a union without paying dues, so how could they possibly expect me to pay for their benefits?
5
Yes… we're almost back to 1926 America, home of the robber barons, 7 day work weeks and cheap child labor. Thanks for the right to work!
4
Really? Do you really believe that?
Very naïve.
Very naïve.
1
I'm not in favor of this law, but it bothers me to see people protesting inside the Wisconsin state capitol. The time to organize was when state legislators were being voted in, and there will be another election, another time to organize. Protesting what elected legislators have done is useless and meaningless.
1
So why is giving employees the option of paying their union dues taking away a "right"? Unions don't serve their members; they serve their leadership.
1
As a percent of the population, Union membership in the private sector is below where it was when the National Labor Relations Board was created in the 1930's.
Unions long ago grew in size because they got out there and organized with no protections of any laws. The Unions today have lost the art of organizing, and instead give their money to politicians to try to "protect" what they have. If these Unions took the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions and spent it on organizing, then just like before the NLRB law was passed, people would join them because they WANTED to join them.
Unions must learn that they are in a death spiral and need to fundamentally change from being nothing but a collection agency for politicians and instead start organizing across this Country or they will disappear -- just like the dinosaurs. I do not want to hear them cry about the mean employers today who fire organizers -- what did they do before the NLRB was passed?
Unions long ago grew in size because they got out there and organized with no protections of any laws. The Unions today have lost the art of organizing, and instead give their money to politicians to try to "protect" what they have. If these Unions took the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions and spent it on organizing, then just like before the NLRB law was passed, people would join them because they WANTED to join them.
Unions must learn that they are in a death spiral and need to fundamentally change from being nothing but a collection agency for politicians and instead start organizing across this Country or they will disappear -- just like the dinosaurs. I do not want to hear them cry about the mean employers today who fire organizers -- what did they do before the NLRB was passed?
9
Maybe Scott Walker is the figure the labor movement has needed to galvanize the rank and file. After all, it was union members in places like Michigan and Wisconsin who voted for Reagan, the first modern union and pension busting President.
5
Perhaps the gun toting, bible thumping middle class, has found that not all their interest lie with the big labor, Democrat machine of times past. The far left swing of the Party excludes the larger center. This should have been learned with the Mondale and Dukakis defeats. I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me.
The police and fire union membership still have to pay their union dues. We don't see them complaining about that. I think it is because they know they have a better deal with union representation than without. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/293250891.html
5
Yes, why don't police and firemen get to exercise this wonderful right to work?
3
I pay less than 1 percent of my weekly pay check to my union. I pay about 25 percent to my government on a weekly basis. Yet I still drive on crumbling roads and I'm being asked to pay more taxes to fix that because apparently we don't have a fund for road upkeep and repair.
Any time I've had an issue at work and needed help from my union they've stood by me. I can't say the same for my government. One ten hour day each week at work pays my taxes. Yet a very small fraction of my weekly time at work goes to pay my union dues. All my government does is bicker with each other and ask me for more money yet I never see any results.
Any time I've had an issue at work and needed help from my union they've stood by me. I can't say the same for my government. One ten hour day each week at work pays my taxes. Yet a very small fraction of my weekly time at work goes to pay my union dues. All my government does is bicker with each other and ask me for more money yet I never see any results.
16
It's true, if people would just do the math they'd realize what little it costs to afford collective bargaining rights. Wisconsin and states following their race to the bottom are willingly (and foolishly) throwing those hard-earned rights away for the few who don't want to pay dues but will still be shielded by union protections.
2
THIS is the "war on the middle class" that Republicans have been accused of, with fake defensiveness that it is the Dems who are trying to stoke a class war. Fine, but allow unions to collect from non-union workers for the work they've done to procure increased benefits for them too! A simple comparison between union and non-union wages for the same work will show the difference. Unions should go on strike until they do, while they still can.
It started with outsourcing production overseas for low-cost, high quality goods from countries that have few fair labor and environmental laws, for American workers to compete with. Spending down our savings to buy them as American jobs began to vanish, now both are gone. The last holdouts are American workers that do jobs that can only be done here, local government workers, and this is intended to take care of them too.
No wonder the average working-class person can no longer afford a house or to send his kids to college, like his parents could, they are being systematically kicked out of the middle class. At least we all get healthcare now, unless SCOTUS has been bought off by the Koch brothers.
It started with outsourcing production overseas for low-cost, high quality goods from countries that have few fair labor and environmental laws, for American workers to compete with. Spending down our savings to buy them as American jobs began to vanish, now both are gone. The last holdouts are American workers that do jobs that can only be done here, local government workers, and this is intended to take care of them too.
No wonder the average working-class person can no longer afford a house or to send his kids to college, like his parents could, they are being systematically kicked out of the middle class. At least we all get healthcare now, unless SCOTUS has been bought off by the Koch brothers.
8
The issue really is workers' rights vs owners' rights. Businesses create associations and Chambers of Commerce. Owners have the ehfty advantage of wealth.Workers used to have the advantage of numbers via unions. Without unions, labour and 'labourers' were exploited. We need to look again at Henry Ford's ideas. Employers need to consider what value their wares have when the masses can't afford them....
10
Divide and conquer, pit the workers against the unions while large corporations pocket the difference in lower wages + combined tax breaks.
11
Only Leftists would try to portray a law that expanded worker freedom as a bad thing.
5
So when do the police and firemen get to taste this freedom? Why are they exempt?
3
Why shouldn't labor fall? It's leaders gorge at expensive restaurants, hob nob with elites, and treat their rank and file like peasants. Seems every revolutionary is doomed to don the cloak of the tyrant they overthrew - and in turn suffer their fate.
11
Unions had value at one time, but their usefulness, just like the 8-track player, is long gone. Those who disagree are still free to belong, just like they're free to hold onto to that 8-track player of yesteryear.
Those who don't like their employer are free to leave and get a much bigger salary and benefits package somewhere else. They are no longer burdened with, in the words of one prominent liberal, "job lock."
And they no longer have to suffer with money forcefully taken from their pay to fund pet causes of the liberal elites with whom they have nothing in common. Finally, if they wish, they can simply start their own business, with the sky as the limit.
Those who don't like their employer are free to leave and get a much bigger salary and benefits package somewhere else. They are no longer burdened with, in the words of one prominent liberal, "job lock."
And they no longer have to suffer with money forcefully taken from their pay to fund pet causes of the liberal elites with whom they have nothing in common. Finally, if they wish, they can simply start their own business, with the sky as the limit.
8
Dear Namesake in Kansas,
Glad you brought up "job lock". Do you mean all the politicians so cozy and permanently elected in their gerrymandered state and congressional districts. It's a joke that out of 435 congressional districts that not even 10 % were considered "in play" in 2014.
Glad you brought up "job lock". Do you mean all the politicians so cozy and permanently elected in their gerrymandered state and congressional districts. It's a joke that out of 435 congressional districts that not even 10 % were considered "in play" in 2014.
1
''Right to work' is closely allied with the pension busting going on by the same Koch playbook to turn the US into a third world country, as labor costs go to nothing and corporate profits soar (even higher).
That this is enabled by SCOTUS' Citizens United shows how long and well the Bircher conservatives have strategized from their "think" tanks.
Voters please read up and show up. This is war on the worker, and the 99%.
That this is enabled by SCOTUS' Citizens United shows how long and well the Bircher conservatives have strategized from their "think" tanks.
Voters please read up and show up. This is war on the worker, and the 99%.
7
Look, the unions are alienating their members- and potential members- by loudly advocating leftist issues that often have nothing to do with wages and benefits. The union leadership clearly views dues as a piggy bank to fund collateral social issues, and this angers the rank and file. I'm amazed that the leadership hasn't figured this out. Instead, we get this arrogant, elitist attitude from the leadership, and the readers here, that dumb union voters are acting against their own self-interest. Untrue, and a spectacular failure of vision by the left.
10
The Republican blueprint is to turn Wisconsin, and then the other Republican states, into low-wage sweatshop (and gut their health care, and education systems along the way).
6
All republican states are fighting Mississippi for the honor of being dead last in everything.
2
I happen to be a union member in a right to work state. Here it has forced the union to pay much closer attention to us, the rank and file members. Our union has to work much harder for the workers in order to retain our participation. The leadership cannot take us for granted and grow fat on the forced dues of everyone in the workforce without making an effort to really represent us. I like right to work and I am a union member by my own choice.
11
Don't fret... Unions will be back and with a vengeance. This silly man who thinks he might be president will be swept aside by a huge outpouring of strong young voters who have very different vision for America's future.
1
Ben Franklin said: "we must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately" That;s why unions once formed require universal membership. Would it be acceptable for taxpayers to opt out of paying for Defense?
7
Unions are good but no so much for the exceptional individual who opens his mouth about problems.
3
Walker didn't have the guts to take on the cops, just the teachers and other state workers.
8
Just the women, like all cowards.
2
Unfortnately for the Progressive, still living in the 1930's, unions are nt seen by the current working class as useful or worth the union dues or to pay for the union bosses lavish life styles (i.e Richard Trumkars $150 haircuts).
5
Being forced to join an organization is un-American. Having your wages confiscated, to pay for that organization, is criminal. Let unions sell their product to workers and let them decide whether to pay voluntarily.
7
A true forked-tongue talker is Walker,
At Union destruction no balker,
A Koch acolyte,
Finds worker's rights trite,
Relentless entitlement stalker!
At Union destruction no balker,
A Koch acolyte,
Finds worker's rights trite,
Relentless entitlement stalker!
13
This seems pretty clear cut. Anyone who want to join the union can. Those who don't want to join can say thanks. Of course Democrats like Barack Obama are all in favor of choice except when it comes to unions. Bottom line - if you like your union you can join it to paraphrase the president. The difference is if you don't like your union yo don;t have to join!!!
6
But, you still get to benefit from the last 50 years of their groundwork. Nice. Very, very nice. Next law, when their collective bargaining works and the union negotiates a wage hike, only members get.... Oh. Wait. Sorry. That will never again happen. Maybe the workers can learn about it while buying stuff at the company store using company script.
9
I disagree. They are in favor of choice except when it comes to unions AND education, where "choice" is a bad word. Oh, and our medical care - remember, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" (choice)?
So, Dems and Obama are about anything but choice it seems. They want to tell you what your choice is!
So, Dems and Obama are about anything but choice it seems. They want to tell you what your choice is!
The people that labor proponents are vilifying here as moochers are their fellow workers. How on earth is that a winning proposition? Will that make one person reverse course and elect to pay union dues?
3
So many comments are so contemptuous of the sizable number of workers who opt out of paying dues. This is not a smart way to win back an essential percentage of your constituency. Another way, instead of demonizing them, might be to *persuade* them of the importance of sticking together and paying union dues.
Or are a significant number of employees simply stupid, unable to distinguish short term vs long term interest, and averse to reason and persuasion?
Now that's a winning position! Mr. Walker has nothing to fear here.
Or are a significant number of employees simply stupid, unable to distinguish short term vs long term interest, and averse to reason and persuasion?
Now that's a winning position! Mr. Walker has nothing to fear here.
8
Now you can just be forced to "bow down" before a rich corporate executive who is planning to reduce the last remaining vacation hours you once had, the final personal days you could have spent with your children, and the now the severely-reduced pay you just received. The American Dream achievable now?? Good luck thanks to these mega-wealthy-backed bozos like Walker and their mission to end anyone supporting the American Workers dreams and ambitions to actually make a living. Thanks for making this goal now more unachievable Mr. Walker.
13
Wisconsin has brought itself low. It now has one of the lowest minimum wages in the country, and a high school grad/hamburger flipper for a governor. When I lived there it was proud, tough, and well-educated.
17
You'd be surprised at how many successful people started put as hamburger flippers. It isn't what you stated as, it's how you finished.
1
Yep, WI was once a great state, now it is just Mississippi north.
2
The pernicious and hypocritical nature of “right to work” laws may best be illustrated by considering the liberal flip-side or “members-only” bargaining units. A members-only bargaining unit would consist of employees who want to join a union and exclude those who do not. You would expect this to appeal to "conservative" business leaders, but they generally oppose such arrangements.
It is hard for unions to maintain majority employee support during an election process in which an employer is well situated to intimidate and discourage employees from electing a union. A union might start out with 75% support, but end with 40% after an aggressive anti-union campaign. Management likes this because the 40% who want a union don't get it (since majority rules). However, if a members-only unit were allowed, the 40% who want a union would still get one.
In this context, “right to work” laws are a second bite at the apple for a business elite that is more concerned about avoiding unions than protecting employee freedoms. They insist on a majority vote, but do not want the union to be able to charge employees for their fair share of representation if the union actually wins. This has the effect of undermining unions financially and creating immediate resentment among employees who agree to pay. It is a nice concession prize for self-proclaimed "conservatives" whose financial interests conflict with their professed ideology and alleged concern for rank-and-file employees.
It is hard for unions to maintain majority employee support during an election process in which an employer is well situated to intimidate and discourage employees from electing a union. A union might start out with 75% support, but end with 40% after an aggressive anti-union campaign. Management likes this because the 40% who want a union don't get it (since majority rules). However, if a members-only unit were allowed, the 40% who want a union would still get one.
In this context, “right to work” laws are a second bite at the apple for a business elite that is more concerned about avoiding unions than protecting employee freedoms. They insist on a majority vote, but do not want the union to be able to charge employees for their fair share of representation if the union actually wins. This has the effect of undermining unions financially and creating immediate resentment among employees who agree to pay. It is a nice concession prize for self-proclaimed "conservatives" whose financial interests conflict with their professed ideology and alleged concern for rank-and-file employees.
9
And in the end, after these conservative republicans have stripped away any kind of self-respect working people had after reducing their working hours, reducing their vacation hours to spend with family, removing most personal days to spend with children, and being forced to work on sacred days such as Thanksgiving and Christmas. These men who represent the nations wealthiest corporate millionaires and billionaires will have made that income canyon between the very rich and the poor deeper and wider than ever before.
11
Really? Forced to pay union dues.. I am glad when I pay my dues because I know I am being represented by Union Business agents who over the years have worked to ensure Higher Pay, Great Health Benefits and an excellent Retirement package, not to mention improved working conditions by working with OSHA..... The governor of Wisconsin just gave this up for so many Wisconsinites.. the people are being deceived by this nutcase..the owners of various companies now will be able to put their thumb down on their employees ..Scott Walker has delivered for the few who have the money and snubbed the many who will now have to work even harder for their share...I pity the drunken people of Wisconsin... Educate yourselves Wisconsinites ..JEEZ !!
13
if I want to join the union I will. Don't force me to oin.
1
And you have the right to join a union and pay for the representation. Now, others who feel different have the right not to join and not to pay for what they do not want.
1
Bill, you aren't forced to join the union. That's what "right to work" sounds like it means, but it's not. No one is forced to join the union. The union sees that all the workers are protected even if they don't join the union. If you don't join the union, you pay a modest fee, you don't lift a finger, and the union protects you. You aren't forced to join the union.
5
Little this will be helping the economy. Many in these GOP states that are in government jobs are still walking away with huge payouts and not realistic pensions with fully paid healthcare many in their Fifties. They are now able to double and triple dip. It looks good for votes .
1
It is so wrong that union bosses bitterly oppose the businesses that employ people. If they worked WITH business executives to figure out how to grow, prosper and compete, they all would do better, the country especially. The only loser would be the Democrat Party because the union bosses finance it in a kind of political blackmail. Then the elected politicians pass legislation to continue and strengthen union monopolies and forced dues extraction from unwilling workers. "We elect you, you pay us off." Corruption. The country would be better off in these modern times without union bosses looking out for themselves. Put workers and business employers on the same side. Get everyone working and wages increase. But Democrats can't allow that.
6
President Obama issued a statement calling the measure “a new anti-worker law,"
How can a measure ensuring freedom of choice for workers be anti-worker but a law ensuring freedom of choice for women is pro-woman? Is freedom of choice a good thing, a bad thing, or does it depend on what choice people are free to make (or if the choice will decrease the support the Democratic party can be sure of from the Unions)?
How can a measure ensuring freedom of choice for workers be anti-worker but a law ensuring freedom of choice for women is pro-woman? Is freedom of choice a good thing, a bad thing, or does it depend on what choice people are free to make (or if the choice will decrease the support the Democratic party can be sure of from the Unions)?
3
There should be no unions in government employment. In private business if they aren't in mining the are just blood suckers on the economy.
3
It is high noon at American politics. Democrats decide to take side with workers and middle class. The Republican party takes side with the super rich and powerful. Who is going to prevail this time? Barack Obama or the Titans of 21st century Gilded Era?
8
Obviously, when unions develop contracts with employers, non-union members should not be a party to the contract and derive no benefits from it.
11
Public employee unions are bankrupting America. Get rid of them.
5
Corporations not paying any taxes is "bankrupting America."
5
No. Bankers are bankrupting America.
5
Mr. Reicher, Please identify those "corporations not paying any taxes." Indeed, perhaps some government corporations operate without paying taxes, but I cannot think of any privately or publicly held corporation that operates without paying taxes.
As we read these comments about right to work laws it is helpful to remember this; fundamentally labor unions are businesses and the customers (i.e., workers) are not buying the product. 11.1% of eligible workers in 2014 were members of labor unions and much of that through coercive membership. In the private sector it is even more telling where only 6.6% are union members and the number falling each year. In the public sector union membership is 35.7% of the eligible work force. Were it not for mandatory membership and union pandering politicians public sector union membership would undoubtedly be significantly lower.
So instead of lambasting about right to work laws labor unions need to look inward about what kind of value they provide in exchange for dues extortion. I encourage the workers of this country to visit the AFL-CIO headquarters or the headquarters of any other large labor union and see the Taj Mahal edifices paid for by forced unionization. Visit this web site and discover the salaries union leaders are paid, much of it by forced union membership; https://www.unionfacts.com/employees/AFL-CIO. And remember these extraordinarily highly paid union leaders do not fear for their employment. They worry not about their performance or the way they manage union finances (your dues). It is long overdue that unions stand or fall on the value of the services they provide to their membership.
So instead of lambasting about right to work laws labor unions need to look inward about what kind of value they provide in exchange for dues extortion. I encourage the workers of this country to visit the AFL-CIO headquarters or the headquarters of any other large labor union and see the Taj Mahal edifices paid for by forced unionization. Visit this web site and discover the salaries union leaders are paid, much of it by forced union membership; https://www.unionfacts.com/employees/AFL-CIO. And remember these extraordinarily highly paid union leaders do not fear for their employment. They worry not about their performance or the way they manage union finances (your dues). It is long overdue that unions stand or fall on the value of the services they provide to their membership.
5
They had a chance to vote him out last fall and didn't do it. Elections have consequences. So sad to see Wisconsin go down this way. The quality of life difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin says it all.
4
They did vote him out, they never voted for him in the first place, even the UN said that the elections in WI were more corrupt than some third world countries.
There is not a republican in office who won a majority of eligible voters, just like Bush never won either election, he was installed dictator.
Gerrymandering alone accounts for about 60% of republicans in office then add in voter suppression, closing down, moving polling places, corrupt voter ID laws etc. and you reach pretty much 100% of republicans being in office.
It does not help that so many people who can vote just won't, it is easier for them to steal elections in big turn outs as Obama being president is proof of that.
There is not a republican in office who won a majority of eligible voters, just like Bush never won either election, he was installed dictator.
Gerrymandering alone accounts for about 60% of republicans in office then add in voter suppression, closing down, moving polling places, corrupt voter ID laws etc. and you reach pretty much 100% of republicans being in office.
It does not help that so many people who can vote just won't, it is easier for them to steal elections in big turn outs as Obama being president is proof of that.
1
United we bargain. Divided we beg.
10
Good for Governor Walker! What a stupid thing: to be forced to join a Union, and to be forced to pay Union dues. Walker for President!!
3
One characteristic always overlooked when talking about the value of labor is time. You will always here from people defending ownership and shareholders, etc. as saying that it is the investment and risk of the ownership that even provides these jobs. And I say to that this; not only do workers provide their labor and imagination to their jobs but they give up the single greatest resource of all: Time. You can never get any back. Far more valuable than anything else we as humans possess other than life. Time. Now pay people properly for the single biggest investment anyone can make.
7
Please give your criteria for "properly".
Okay, but you're not working on a movie with a union contract if you aren't union. And we aren't negotiating that. Union strong.
6
So between a person who wants to work and the person who wants to hire, the union steps in and says, "Pay up or we screw both of you". Great concept of how human beings relate to one another in society.
1
As I look through some of these comments, I wonder if the anti-union people are even aware of the fact that every single time you turn your television on or go to a movie or watch a professional sports event either live or on TV, or get in your car and take a drive somewhere, you are watching and/or supporting UNION WORKERS, from Major League Baseball, the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, to the Screen Actor's Guild (now called SAG-AFTRA), to the UAW, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, et. al.
Do you really want to fly in an airplane or drive a car made by nonunion workers? I don't. Wal-Mart, champion of cheap, sweatshop-manufactured goods from toxic China, is also the champion recipient of taxpayer-subsidized welfare.
Right to work means one thing and one thing only: LOW, LOWER and LOWEST wages. Slim to no benefits. No vacation. No overtime, and zero negotiating power. It is astonishing to me that people think nothing of the outrageous multi-million-dollar contracts negotiated by people who work on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms every single day, but they complain ad nauseum about a single parent fighting to stay afloat working two and three jobs that collectively don't even pay the bills.
If right to work states are so fantastic and the people living in them are doing so well, then why are so many wage earners in those states on food stamps and welfare?
Do you really want to fly in an airplane or drive a car made by nonunion workers? I don't. Wal-Mart, champion of cheap, sweatshop-manufactured goods from toxic China, is also the champion recipient of taxpayer-subsidized welfare.
Right to work means one thing and one thing only: LOW, LOWER and LOWEST wages. Slim to no benefits. No vacation. No overtime, and zero negotiating power. It is astonishing to me that people think nothing of the outrageous multi-million-dollar contracts negotiated by people who work on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms every single day, but they complain ad nauseum about a single parent fighting to stay afloat working two and three jobs that collectively don't even pay the bills.
If right to work states are so fantastic and the people living in them are doing so well, then why are so many wage earners in those states on food stamps and welfare?
13
Of the top ten per capita welfare caseload states, two (Tennessee at #3 and Indiana at #8) are right to work states. I believe that refutes you last paragraph; if you disagree please explain.
Per capita caseloads from http://www.acf.hhs.gov data
Per capita caseloads from http://www.acf.hhs.gov data
1
it is unfortunate that so many things we do support union workers. I try to avoid doing that whenever possible.
1
Remember the union busting Reagan was a member of three unions and president of one. OK for him, not for you.
2
What did you expect from a potential presidential candidate who equated dealing with foreign enemies of the U.S. with facing down union protestors?
You bet - Scott Walker is all about the working man & woman.
You bet - Scott Walker is all about the working man & woman.
9
Unbelievable but true and more's the pity.
2
Unions helped to bring many Americans to a middle class way of life. People of all ethnicities were able to participate.
Gradually the unions became perverted. It doesn't mean that they should be done away with, not whatsoever. But they must be restructured with the same focus that was applied when they were created.:
"A fair wage for a day's work"
Gradually the unions became perverted. It doesn't mean that they should be done away with, not whatsoever. But they must be restructured with the same focus that was applied when they were created.:
"A fair wage for a day's work"
9
Unions did not create the middle class. Unions create no wealth, they just redistribute it, mostly from people either of the same income or poorer than they are.
1
Jvermeer51@" Unions did not create the middle class".
True, there were many other factors involved such as housing which helped to create a strong middle class.
That wasn't the point of the comment: "Unions helped to bring many Americans to a middle class way of life".
But to vilify unions today is meant to eradicate them entirely. We know that without collective bargaining corporations would pay as little as possible. They have never been fair to workers, the goal is profits, not community.... Nothing is wrong with profits, but they can't nor should they substitute the growth of " community"....
True, there were many other factors involved such as housing which helped to create a strong middle class.
That wasn't the point of the comment: "Unions helped to bring many Americans to a middle class way of life".
But to vilify unions today is meant to eradicate them entirely. We know that without collective bargaining corporations would pay as little as possible. They have never been fair to workers, the goal is profits, not community.... Nothing is wrong with profits, but they can't nor should they substitute the growth of " community"....
2
I live in Oregon where I am forced to pay thousands of dollars in dues to the SEIU, a union I refuse to join. It's criminal extortion. They do nothing for me while paying their management quite well to attend "Occupy" protests
2
Of course the union does lots of things for you, but you refuse to recognize or accept it.
3
You are not paying "dues." You're paying an agency fee, which is for the wages and benefits you are receiving as a result of the SEIU organizing workers and demanding a better deal. I would be proud to pay my dues for being a recipient of improved working conditions and wages.
4
When I belonged to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers I paid something like $900 a year and grossed around $80K annually, not too bad a trade-off. Also good health and welfare; what's your craft?
4
If union members want to pay higher union dues let them, but a member should not be forced....oh but I thought giving a person a choice is the American way....
There will never be a cure for narrow the minded (I mean something else but I won't go there).....
There will never be a cure for narrow the minded (I mean something else but I won't go there).....
1
Just don't accept anything the union got for its membership and get it for yourself; pretty simple, or ask $nott Walker.
3
Scott Walker is acting like he is giving people freedom to work. people already have the freedom to work.
2
Another victory for the American worker, and a defeat for the archaic union system
1
Or rather, another victory for the mega-wealthy CEO.
5
Yaah! If you're a boss! Do you know what TR told FDR when Franklin said his career was going to be in the Democratic Party, "Just go after the bosses".
2
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the wall coming down most of us were under the impression Democracy was working and spreading. Since the Reagan Era we see that's not true. America is moving in the direction where the rich and powerful became so uncompromisingly greedy and selfish that wealth is not respected anymore With the Middle Class being destroyed we see investments and manufacturing being moved over-seas. Economically it a matter of time before your world will come crumbling down. The billions now being pumped into off-shore bank accounts won't buy much when its the only island you can escape to for your life. Based on what you are doing with your wealth, Keep it up, I want to live to see you get it. This is what the Russians are expecting from you.
5
Do as rich people do, America. The millionaires know the power of collective bargaining. When rich people are themselves employees, they have strong unions. Look at professional athlete's player's associations, which handle collective bargaining on behalf of the players with the league. You don't see professional athletes crying out for "right to play" laws to weaken their unions.
6
You don't see them insisting that all players receive the same wage either.
1
So this is what Scott Walker meant when he told billionaire donor Diane Hendricks that, in order to make Wisconsin a "red state, a right-to-work," he would first need to "divide and conquer" the public and private sectors. Act 10 four years ago created a union-hating wedge, and today he finished the job. Neither of these laws were mentioned in any of his campaigns other than his explicit denial that they were under consideration.
8
"Freedom-to-work legislation."
George Orwell is spinning in his grave.
George Orwell is spinning in his grave.
8
This comes on the same day that we learn that the office of the Republican governor of Florida has instructed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to not use the term "climate change" when discussing the increasing environmental issues facing that state.
Governor Walker's administration and the GOP in Virginia have already issued similar edicts.
One has to wonder if union busting and science denial, along with the move to restrict voting among non Republicans plus the GOP's desire to dismantle the social safety net are really going to equal electoral success.
One thing is for sure: educated and young whites and the minority communities are not with the GOP on most issues.
The Democrats need to offer a real alternative to this GOP forced march to the past, and Hillary Clinton is probably not it.
Governor Walker's administration and the GOP in Virginia have already issued similar edicts.
One has to wonder if union busting and science denial, along with the move to restrict voting among non Republicans plus the GOP's desire to dismantle the social safety net are really going to equal electoral success.
One thing is for sure: educated and young whites and the minority communities are not with the GOP on most issues.
The Democrats need to offer a real alternative to this GOP forced march to the past, and Hillary Clinton is probably not it.
4
From the "Divide and Conquer" Governor who went "big and bold" because he refuses to waver, here is a law that Scott Walker was "for" before he needed Wisconsin to elect him, "against" while running for office (thrice), and now "for" again since it was one of the reasons why he was put into office by all those billionaires in the first place.
4
You noticed that Walker didn't even attempt to say anything about how this would help workers.
4
100 years of workers' rights undone with the stroke of a pen. Wisconsin must be so proud.
5
One of our GOP legislators has proposed to Wisconsin business owners that they relocate to Minnesota - apparently the business owners are not excited about the prospect of individually negotiating with employees. Minnesota is doing much better than Wisconsin, which is heading toward dead last in almost every statistic. The toxic atmosphere there is stunning -last week the GOP supporters were making fun of the hard hats protesting. Apparently if you wear work clothes you are an object of ridicule.
4
The reason to be against unions is to have a barrier to siphoning income out of unprotected workers' incomes into your bonus. The Vulture Chart says it all about how distribution of the rewards for creating success have been diverted upwards. It speaks directly to the whole Disparity of Income issue. So you want to take the job away from the other guy because you'll undercut him or her? Sounds exactly like another CHEAP tactic republicans use to hate labor. What would you expect from the Pro Pollution Party?
2
One hamburger place down the street wants to undercut the one up the street. It makes both better. It gets a better product. The union cartel is why we get so many lousy workers: why be good when everyone is paid the same. And when, if you try and be better, you have "accidents' happen letting you know you better stop.
1
The union way is not the responsible or sustainable way. Look what they did to Detroit.
12
An insincere GOP sound byte. Detroit's demise is not the result of unions. The American middle class was at it's most prosperous (1950's -70's) when 35% of the working population were union members, instead of the 7% it is now. This also had the added effect of increasing non-union wages, since employers had to compete for workers.
4
Do you have data to share showing causation or correlation between the variables "union" and "Look what [unions] did to Detroit"?
3
What happened in Detroit was the result of decades of mismanagement and poor decision-making, lousy engineering,and inept marketing choices, going back to the 70s. The fish rotted from the head down. The workers' crime was following orders and building what they were told.
6
"Right to freeload".
If the union negotiates (and unions have certainly historically negotiated big improvements in working hours and pay) better rights, then the guys who aren't paying their dues are mooches. Freeloaders.
So call it what it is. This bill doesn't create a new "Right to Work". Instead it creates a "Right to Freeload" and also probably a "Right to Keep More Profits" for its wealthy backers.
If the union negotiates (and unions have certainly historically negotiated big improvements in working hours and pay) better rights, then the guys who aren't paying their dues are mooches. Freeloaders.
So call it what it is. This bill doesn't create a new "Right to Work". Instead it creates a "Right to Freeload" and also probably a "Right to Keep More Profits" for its wealthy backers.
18
Greedy cooperate killed Detroit not the union's
2
I've just done something to benefit you. Please send $5. You don't get any say in it; in fact, if you protest, I'll bust your head.
1
I pay less than 1 percent of my paycheck weekly to my union I pay about 25 percent to my government. I think the government is the one we should be fighting not each other.
Being allowed to refuse to pay dues for the main reason put forth by the folks promoting this law because unions donate to DEM candidates that help Unions (imagine that?!) is pretty much the same thing as going to your doctor and refusing to pay him because you don't approve of some patients he associates with. Or not paying your co-Pay because you insurer insures people you disagree with.
It is basically a false and dishonest idea. Union dues pay for the benefits and conditions at the workplace. Political donations the union makes do the same. There is nothing unfair about it.
One must ask why a person is working at a union workplace if they so disagree with the entirety of the principles behind Unionism? Could they be intending to freeload as well as undermine the union?
It is basically a false and dishonest idea. Union dues pay for the benefits and conditions at the workplace. Political donations the union makes do the same. There is nothing unfair about it.
One must ask why a person is working at a union workplace if they so disagree with the entirety of the principles behind Unionism? Could they be intending to freeload as well as undermine the union?
12
"...by weakening the labor groups that have traditionally provided muscle and money to Democratic candidates in crucial swing states."
Well yeah, because many of these labor groups are public sector, meaning they are paid with tax dollars, i.e. teachers, police, state government employees. The idea that employees can be forced to pay dues out of their taxpayer funded salary to a union that will then overwhelmingly donate that money to liberal politicians is just wrong. The reason so many Americans are in support of right-to-work is because it has become clear what is going on. The public sector unions systematically funnel tax dollars to Democrats by requiring employees to pay dues. It's ridiculous and it's time for it to end.
Well yeah, because many of these labor groups are public sector, meaning they are paid with tax dollars, i.e. teachers, police, state government employees. The idea that employees can be forced to pay dues out of their taxpayer funded salary to a union that will then overwhelmingly donate that money to liberal politicians is just wrong. The reason so many Americans are in support of right-to-work is because it has become clear what is going on. The public sector unions systematically funnel tax dollars to Democrats by requiring employees to pay dues. It's ridiculous and it's time for it to end.
8
You, MikeRight, hit the nail directly on the head.
It's so much more efficient the way the Republicans do it, and just give tax breaks directly to the giant, highly profitable corporations that fund their rotten party, and bypass any representation of employees at all. "The public sector unions systematically funnel tax dollars to Democrats by requiring employees to pay dues"? Republicans and corporations systematically funnel tax dollars to one another by not requiring that corporations pay reasonable wages or reasonable share of taxes in their communities.
1
This puppet of plutocrats will bring his state to ruin. He should not be allowed anywhere near the White House.
15
Walker has the best poll numbers against Hillary. When the election gets into full swing Walker will start to get name recognition. The negatives on Hillary will start to weigh her down. Walker 55%, Hillary 38%, Sanders 7%.
Republicans like Scott Walker and Rick Snyder are dangerous people to have anywhere near the white house. They view their own citizens as enemies and if they weren't so heavily guarded they wouldn't do so. It's a shame that we think we have freedom in this country but if you can't overthrow your government you really don't have freedom. Freedom is a myth.
1
Republicans demonize unions and a minimum wage increase, while protecting tax laws that have created a new "Gilded Age" for the rich.
The Democratic Party has so far been unable to make this case effectively to the electorate. They can only blame themselves. It is not a hard case to make.
The Democratic Party has so far been unable to make this case effectively to the electorate. They can only blame themselves. It is not a hard case to make.
9
And what tax laws are those; be specific.
Wisconsin just passed a "freeloader" law which allows non-union workers to benefit from collective bargaining agreements in the workplace without having to make a nominal contribution. Conservatives refer to such laws as "right-to-work" but if such a label is to be used it should more accurately be called "right-to-work-for-less". This is an important element in the Republican class war against workers and a contributing factor to the extreme wealth inequality in this country. The continuing mystery is why working class voters elect officials who represent the 1% and are dedicated to the continuing wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.
9
The most wealthy are winning and people are just sitting back and congratulating them, with some big help from Walker.
2
You're assuming unions are a net benefit. Some people disagree.
1
Every time a union shop negotiates a pay raise or increase in benefits, it benefits all who work there. So I guess what people want is "free-market" labor, where people can see who can work for less. Competition. Oh, except when it comes to CEOs.
7
And every time a union busts a few heads, it benefits everyone? And every time they make working so inefficient, the business closes, it benefits everyone? And every time they create the toxic atmosphere of rage, self-pity, violence and corruption, it benefits everyone?
1
Numerous studies have found that wages for both union and non-union workers are lower in states with right-to-work laws. Others have found that workplace safety suffers in right-to-work states, where workers are less likely to secure job safety enhancements beyond federal and state regulations. [McClatchy Newspapers, 2/16/12]
----------------------
Citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Research Service reported that the average wage in a right-to-work state was $42,465, compared with $49,495 in "labor security" states. [Congressional Research Service, 6/20/12]
-------------------------------------
RTW laws lower wages for union and non-union workers by an average of $1,500 a year and decrease the likelihood employees will get health insurance or pensions through their jobs. By lowering compensation, they have the indirect effect of undermining consumer spending, which threatens economic growth. For every $1 million in wage cuts to workers, $850,000 less is spent in the economy, which translates into a loss of six jobs. [Economic Policy Institute, 9/16/11]
----------------------
Citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Research Service reported that the average wage in a right-to-work state was $42,465, compared with $49,495 in "labor security" states. [Congressional Research Service, 6/20/12]
-------------------------------------
RTW laws lower wages for union and non-union workers by an average of $1,500 a year and decrease the likelihood employees will get health insurance or pensions through their jobs. By lowering compensation, they have the indirect effect of undermining consumer spending, which threatens economic growth. For every $1 million in wage cuts to workers, $850,000 less is spent in the economy, which translates into a loss of six jobs. [Economic Policy Institute, 9/16/11]
23
The cost to live in right to work states is much lower so workers come out ahead despite the lower wage.
Untrue. Housing may be lower but food, clothing, utilities etc are all the same or higher. Florida has no state income tax but a high sales tax on everything.
1
Americans keep crying about wage inequality but a quick to bash unions. Hey, why dont you just cut out your tongue too?
I remember when people were required to learn History in school. If so, they might learn about life before unions. They along with Roosevelts New Deal led to the greatest expansion of the middle class in American history. But hey, pay no mind to those pesky facts and figures. Trust in your daily Faux diatribe.
Well they wont learn about history t in Wisconsin because this dropout derelict Governor also evicerated the education budget too.
Educate them and you lose them. Keep them dumb and they're easily controllable. Stalin out.
I remember when people were required to learn History in school. If so, they might learn about life before unions. They along with Roosevelts New Deal led to the greatest expansion of the middle class in American history. But hey, pay no mind to those pesky facts and figures. Trust in your daily Faux diatribe.
Well they wont learn about history t in Wisconsin because this dropout derelict Governor also evicerated the education budget too.
Educate them and you lose them. Keep them dumb and they're easily controllable. Stalin out.
14
One of the things in every econ textbook ,whether written by liberals or conservatives, is that cartels reduce the output of goods (goods are the things which reduce poverty) and raise the price. Unions are just cartels of labor and require special interest exemptions from anti-trust rules. No more special interest favors.
And more and more economic historians are coming to the conclusion that FDR's New Deal, especially the labor legislation, deepened and extended the Depression. (See Cole and Ohanian of UCLA).
And more and more economic historians are coming to the conclusion that FDR's New Deal, especially the labor legislation, deepened and extended the Depression. (See Cole and Ohanian of UCLA).
1
I worked for a global company with both union & non-union locations in the U.S. Without exception, the non-union locations outperformed the union locations, and not because non-exempt employees were paid less than their union counterparts. The performance delta hinged on the non-union workers being paid for performance. Most people want their individual effort recognized while also understanding that high performing teams are interdependent. Union rules are stifling .... if a job needs to be done and I have the training & skills to do it, why should I not simply because the guy with the 'appropriate' job title isn't there and might not be there for 30 minutes? Pride in being able to do your best work every time you come to work drives individual and business success.
10
Interesting that none of the pro-union folks have responded to this. Ultimately, this is the core of the argument.
Okay, now it is time to declare tenure for teachers as a anachronism of a bygone era.
6
States with strong teachers unions outperform the states where teachers unions are weak or non existent. Of course that could be because the smart people leave those states.
4
There won't be any people willing to be teachers. Already there are statistics showing that young people are not choosing a teaching career. People aren't blind; they can see how unappreciated teachers are and who would choose a career path that's under attack from all sides, that's being blamed for all society's ills? Tenure was offered to keep well-qualified people in the system. It was never irreversible; what was demanded was due process and not some arbitrary bust because of any number of possible personal prejudices by principals and school boards. Maybe tomjoe9 should try teaching. Try going to school for four years to get a credential then being probationary for two years. Try keeping up with all the new and improved fads that come and go and require teachers to be re-educated only to watch the new thing get replaced by the next fad and on and on. Tenure was a minimal commitment from the employer that ensured that a person wouldn't be arbitrarily let go because someone had a brother or sister who wanted to try teaching. People are so misinformed; it's sickening reading some of these comments by people who I imagine have never done anything yet think they know something.
5
Actually, public schools are an anachronism. Education is too important to let it be a virtual government monopoly within which is a union monopoly aligned with one political party and in which the customers don't directly finance the purchase of the product.
Be PROUD, Wisconsin TeaKluxers ! Your state has sunk to:
42nd best for business...
44th in job growth...
45th in wage growth...
49th in economic outlook...
50th in short-term job growth !
Couldn't have accomplished this without the RepubliKlan Party and the Koch Brothers !
42nd best for business...
44th in job growth...
45th in wage growth...
49th in economic outlook...
50th in short-term job growth !
Couldn't have accomplished this without the RepubliKlan Party and the Koch Brothers !
18
So many see Walker as liberating the American worker from the clutches of evil unions. It never seems to dawn on those same commenters that this is just the long march in a larger plan to give the middle class less of a say in the legislative policy at the state and national level. It really speaks volumes about the GOP when coupled with voter id laws. Where business owners, heads of industry can establish their PAC of choice, trade groups and afford lobbyists and influence the laws they wish they can tip the scales and fully take advantage of Citizens United. However, the union is a very one issue organization. This is the unfortunate reality of a two party system. Until Citizens United is overturned, campaign finance addressed and the eliminations of a two party political system many in the middle class will continue to fall further down the socio-economic ladder.
8
Here is an anecdote my father used to tell me when I asked him to explain what unions were for.
A man applied for a job and asked for $10 hr. The employer said "I can't pay you that I don’t know you are worth it." "But I am." the man said. The employer offered him a deal; "How about you work for $5 hr for a week and prove to me you are worth $10 and then I can pay you $10hr?" The man agrees. A week later having met all expectations he goes to the boss and asked to be paid $10hr to which the boss says "Why would I pay you $10hr for a job I know you will do for $5hr?"
A man applied for a job and asked for $10 hr. The employer said "I can't pay you that I don’t know you are worth it." "But I am." the man said. The employer offered him a deal; "How about you work for $5 hr for a week and prove to me you are worth $10 and then I can pay you $10hr?" The man agrees. A week later having met all expectations he goes to the boss and asked to be paid $10hr to which the boss says "Why would I pay you $10hr for a job I know you will do for $5hr?"
13
Now Wisconsin has the "right to work". Yeah! Workers can now enjoy the benefits of no one to represent you, lower benefits, lower wages, no negotiating leverage, reduced retirement security. Good luck and enjoy all great cheese.
13
Instead of the misnomer of right-to-work this should be a right-to-steal from the efforts of organized labor. Having won so many battles for worker's rights and benefits unions have become the victims of their own success in a changing socioeconomic political educational work environment.
6
Oh good, now Wisconsin can join my neighbors across the river in Idaho. Idaho became a Right to Work state in the mid 1980's and ever since then has seen their average wage scale fall to the lowest in the nation. They also have seen the average teacher salary fall to the lowest level in the country as well, and(no surprise) their ave college graduation levels the lowest in the nation to boot But hey, Idaho has the most millionaires per capita in the nation. So if you are rich or would like to get richer you can always count on using the low wage earners in Idaho to help you along. Welcome to the ranks of the low wage states Wisconsin-Go Badgers!
18
Republicans creep into office in off, and off-off year elections only.
1
The "Right To Poverty" Law.
11
Citizens of Wisconsin: Is it time yet for another recall election?
8
One can't come soon enough.
5
He would win again, further raising his profile.
4
The good people of Wisconsin need to start looking across the river at Minnesota. That state is thriving with a strong Democratic governor moving in exactly the opposite direction as Walker. Their economy is thriving.
18
Wisconsin's economy is certainly not thriving. Under Walker, it has been at or near the bottom in almost every quantifiable area measured to determine the economic and overall health of a state. That's not been the case historically for Wisconsin, especially when compared to other midwestern states. Wisconsin has historically always been in the top tier of midwestern states for economic health and output. It's a shame that it has been 43rd and 38th in the U.S. under Walker and no longer in the top tier amongst midwestern states. Kansas suffers the same fate as does Wisconsin under it's Republican Governor Brownback. All each can do is assert and promise that their policies will eventually work. Both are in their second terms in office. I suppose their policies will finally work once a Democrat is back in the Governors mansions. That's how this typically plays out...where things improve under Democrats, only to then be claimed by Republicans who would have everyone believe that their policies only ever work after they leave office and things begin to improve.
7
Why shouldn't they look south, to Illinois, a strong union state that is doing awful? Doesn't fit your narrative?
9
Perhaps, but nationally her prescription actually plays out, especially over the last 25 years. Before you freak out over the Federal Debt take a look at Monetary Sovereignty and note that Federal finance and household finance are not the same. Boehner once said "We're broke" and most certainly, we are not. BTW Brownback's Kansas is an unmitigated disaster and states are NOT monetarily sovereign.
2
This law is such a relief, something that has bothered many in this state for a long time. How can, in the land of the free, have the state, on behalf of the unions, without question on the worker's part, take some of his wage and give it to an organization to which you have no wish to be part of. It just didn't make sense when I learned of it in high school, thinking there must be some mistake. It hasn't made sense over the decades since.
Two things have been wonderful: The local school boards no longer have to buy insurance from the union specified (single) company, so competition can go into effect and has saved school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars per year; and secondly, now anyone can work for any employer (with multiple protections from the Federal Government) and take home all the pay s/he makes, without some being removed by a form of garnishment. The sweet deal for monopolistic unions is over.
Note that workers may continue to join unions IF it is what they wish to do, and they may pay union dues IF it is what they wish to do.
Protection of the worker via OSHA and minimum wage has moved from what unions sort of did decades ago, but now have been seen to have little value for some.
If unions are so wonderful, why did their membership drop when workers were finally given a choice about joining or not?
Two things have been wonderful: The local school boards no longer have to buy insurance from the union specified (single) company, so competition can go into effect and has saved school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars per year; and secondly, now anyone can work for any employer (with multiple protections from the Federal Government) and take home all the pay s/he makes, without some being removed by a form of garnishment. The sweet deal for monopolistic unions is over.
Note that workers may continue to join unions IF it is what they wish to do, and they may pay union dues IF it is what they wish to do.
Protection of the worker via OSHA and minimum wage has moved from what unions sort of did decades ago, but now have been seen to have little value for some.
If unions are so wonderful, why did their membership drop when workers were finally given a choice about joining or not?
10
Dale you have a false idea of the situation. The dues paid is for services rendered. The work conditions at the Union shop the nonunion person is working at were established by the Union and it cost money to do so. That is what dues are for.
Your idea of not having to pay assumes you are getting nothing for it. It would be like going to the doctors office, being seen by the doctor then not paying the doctor because you don't approve of how he painted the waiting room.
Your final question is similarly based in a misunderstanding. Unions declined because of union busting by corporations and ignorance as you express in your post "union monopolising" that is some funny stuff.
You are a fool to think you can stand against the world alone, and even more of a fool not to realise the GOP has hamstrung our Government to the point that almost no rule or regulation is ever enforced when violated.
Your idea of not having to pay assumes you are getting nothing for it. It would be like going to the doctors office, being seen by the doctor then not paying the doctor because you don't approve of how he painted the waiting room.
Your final question is similarly based in a misunderstanding. Unions declined because of union busting by corporations and ignorance as you express in your post "union monopolising" that is some funny stuff.
You are a fool to think you can stand against the world alone, and even more of a fool not to realise the GOP has hamstrung our Government to the point that almost no rule or regulation is ever enforced when violated.
4
Yeppers. Good luck with that.
Frankly, I hope that the law is amended to include the right of unions to refuse to have the benefits of their work realized by those who do not contribute.
Frankly, I hope that the law is amended to include the right of unions to refuse to have the benefits of their work realized by those who do not contribute.
8
The only problem with relying on governmental agencies like OSHA for workplace safety is that they are a slow moving bureaucracy that will inspect and issue citations for years before ever forcing the employer to correct problems. I live in Houston where worker deaths are a somewhat regular occurrence - it always turns out that the employer had been repeatedly cited for safety violations. A union is much more effective as they can threaten to shut the workplace down with a walk out. Texas is a right to work state that is not heavily unionized. It would be interesting to see statistics on deaths from workplace accidents in unionized states vs right to work states.
5
What is the conceivable ethical basis for coercing workers to support a union against their will? Those who wish to participate are free to do so. That's as it should be, and should always have been.
8
Because when we negotiate higher wages from the corporatists as a result of our collective power and demands, you get that wage. But go ahead and freeload on the unions' successes.
10
So you don't like freeloaders? Repeal all income redistribution? Welfare, SS, Medicare. Sounds great to me.
2
And the middle class in Wisconsin get another cut... not a tax cut, a salary cut. Lets lower the bar until we need a non-union shovel to find it.
9
Only fools will see this as a "right to work". Undermining unions leads to lower wages. Period. Scott Walker garners donations for his campaigns by funding large business owners out of the pockets of workers. Class warfare exemplified.
15
Oh sure, alienate the majority of the middle class workers who vote. Another GOP logical move.
3
This is progress and I hope all states will adopt such measures. I have been in both union and non-union positions in the state of New Jersey for over 27 years, and when out of work the union was of absolutely no help. They gave me a great deal of ' sympathy' for my troubles, but no financial support , or help in finding work ,for all the years of dues ( 16), that I paid them. I will never agin take any position where union participation is mandatory!
Karl Marx said ' workers of the world unite"-a lot of good it did them!
Karl Marx said ' workers of the world unite"-a lot of good it did them!
7
You're mad because the union didn't give you financial support while you were out of work? That is what unemployment benefits is for and not what union dues are intended for or ever been intended for.
15
And how well did those non-union positions pay? Were they "prevailing wage" or "minimum wage?" For _any_ job that benefits from "prevailing wages," thank a union. As a retired person (but still working), I'm not interested in union politics, but I cheerfully pay my "representation fee," because I know I benefit from the eternally ongoing contract negotiations.
7
I have long watched the attacks on unions and balanced the benefit to the owning class with offsetting and widely seen examples of abuse -- just LOOK at the size of the pensions some government workers draw. But today we are seeing not just threats to worker protection, virtually every way the abused and less powerful have to rely on is being eliminated. We can no longer un-elect those who go too far and we see the incredible power of money taking control of our lives, banks, credit availability, telecom companies, pharma, automobiles -- there's no avoiding the tightening grip the consumer is feeling. You might as well call it the economic war that it is, and the rich and politically powerful are winning.
10
Scapegoating. Right to work laws are enacted where there is limited public opposition. And most workers today don't associate unions with higher wages. There are lots of reasons, but brainwashing by the rich is not a major one. Just look around -- unions barely survive. The economy has changed and with so few skilled blue collar jobs, the unions have lost their core constituency. It's not a conspiracy by the wealthy.
5
Offshoring and outsourcing is what has happened to typical union jobs. Reagan ushered in the service sector economy. Ain't it great?!
12
Sure benefits them, tho...what a coincidence.
1
Any worker who CAN join a union but chooses not to should get their heads examined. The Union saved me when a racist administrator tried to get me fired on trumped up charges (she was later forced to retire after a spy from the State DOE found a pattern of racism) . When the district tried to lay me off because of my date of hire, then didn't lay off the principal's friends who were just hired, the Union helped me and others like me. People who do not know their history need to look at the labor movement during the Gilded Age to see why unions were needed and created in the first place. No minimum wage, set work week(16 hour days -7 days a week were the norm) , no sick or vacation days. Now we understand the GOP war on education because they know "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". It seems it is the 19th century all over again.
16
Yeah.
Come to NYC and watch subpar teachers get raises.
And see incompetent teachers keep their jobs FOR LIFE!
So what if kids don't learn.
Union Strong!
Come to NYC and watch subpar teachers get raises.
And see incompetent teachers keep their jobs FOR LIFE!
So what if kids don't learn.
Union Strong!
7
Are there not now Federal laws to protect you from the very things you cite?
1
Yes, but this is corrupt-Christie-NJ. And what teacher has inexhaustible legal fund for lawyer's fees? The supposedly affirmative action department in the district was designed to squash any complaints to shield the district from even more media attention. The union saved me by arguing the CAP (Corrective action plain- i.e Probation) was illegal since I had the lesson topic on my lesson plan, the subject matter was in the curriculum and the book (the the principal had no idea because she never read the curriculum or opened the book) and the fact that no students or parents complained. We grieved it, she never fought it for obvious reasons and the charges were dropped.
1
Unions had already outlived their usefulness when Jimmy Hoffa disappeared. The old established unions need to be restructured if they are to survive. As it is now they are extorting money from members which all goes to the upper echelons exclusively. Benefits to members are restricted...oh yes, except for the newsletters.
11
And the government doesn't extort money from you?
I believe if unions would have stuck to negotiating with management instead of aspiring to be kingmakers in the political arena, they wouldn't be suffering from this backlash amongst the middle class and blue collar voters.
If you are you going to make sure your people are treated fairly and make a good wage, then what's not to like? However, if you are going to funnel my dues to a candidate whose views are 90-95% contrary to mine, then there is going to be a problem.
If you are you going to make sure your people are treated fairly and make a good wage, then what's not to like? However, if you are going to funnel my dues to a candidate whose views are 90-95% contrary to mine, then there is going to be a problem.
12
You're right. The role of kingmakers should be left to the CEOs. That'll work out real swell.
12
Agree the best interest of a corporation should be decided by its stockholders and managers. Cornhusker let's hope that their interests are aligned with yours. Like Romney right?
4
Not sure that one party, Dem or Repub, controlling a state's executive office and the legislature results in good outcomes. One more example of such.
So you were outraged when the Dems had Congress and the Pres and passed Obamacare? Not likely.
I can't stand this guy, but I must agree that individuals should retain the right to not join a union nor should they have to pay union dues if they care not to join. My wife was forced to pay dues even though she did not join the faculty union. The university (or union?) claimed that the union was still representing her interests despite her decision to not join. Sounded like extortion to me.
10
OK - did she get any pay increases furnished while she was not a member? Annual cost of living or anything at all? How about the benefits, terms of her pension perhaps? I somehow doubt she would have negotiated such things by her lonesome. That's what she paid for.
14
I am an adjunct at a community college, and although I do not participate in the union, I am fully aware that my "representation fee" is money well spent.
8
If that would be the case then you should not receive any benefits negotiated by the union including salary increases.
5
To Anti-Union or Non-Union Workers
The GOP likes to hold up public sector unions — with their higher than average wages and union benefits — as an example of "big government" and "out of control" government spending; because these union workers tend to have better wages and benefits than those who work in the private sector.
But it's not because government workers have been paid too much, but because private sector employees (in non-union houses) have been getting paid too little.
The GOP uses this "divide-and-conquer" strategy to get low-paid non-union workers to turn against government employees — who have been getting cost-of-living raises over the years with union contracts. Whereas, non-union workers have not, and have saw their wages stagnant (or declining) while losing benefits.
"Right-to-work" laws guarantee lower wages, not a right to work at a job of your choosing (let alone, for better wages).
The meager union dues that one pays to politically support those that advocates for labor, is a very small price to pay for higher wages, better benefits, better job security, a better life and a better retirement.
So instead of complaining that union workers have it better than you, try becoming a union worker yourself so that YOU TOO will earn better wages, have better benefits and better job security — rather than wishing others had it just as bad as you.
The GOP likes to hold up public sector unions — with their higher than average wages and union benefits — as an example of "big government" and "out of control" government spending; because these union workers tend to have better wages and benefits than those who work in the private sector.
But it's not because government workers have been paid too much, but because private sector employees (in non-union houses) have been getting paid too little.
The GOP uses this "divide-and-conquer" strategy to get low-paid non-union workers to turn against government employees — who have been getting cost-of-living raises over the years with union contracts. Whereas, non-union workers have not, and have saw their wages stagnant (or declining) while losing benefits.
"Right-to-work" laws guarantee lower wages, not a right to work at a job of your choosing (let alone, for better wages).
The meager union dues that one pays to politically support those that advocates for labor, is a very small price to pay for higher wages, better benefits, better job security, a better life and a better retirement.
So instead of complaining that union workers have it better than you, try becoming a union worker yourself so that YOU TOO will earn better wages, have better benefits and better job security — rather than wishing others had it just as bad as you.
21
What you say is true but there is one significant difference: state workers have a monopoly on state provided services, while no individual company has a monopoly (except cable TV). Since I need to pay for city and state services or face jail, I want to get those services as cheaply as possible. If private companies are unionized and use that union to get better wages, I can consume less of the item provided by that company or none at all or switch to something else if the cost of the products provided increases as a result.
See the difference? One I have to pay, one I can choose not to buy. And that is very important.
See the difference? One I have to pay, one I can choose not to buy. And that is very important.
6
Exactly! And if you get in trouble or in a dispute why should the union come to your aid if you won't join the ranks! The railroad unions saved my bacon on trumped up charges more than once; they happen folks and these people are your next door neighbors, not goons. BTW I went to college and got a degree unlike Deadeye.
4
Great law! Now, can we also see some legislation that would let individual managers pull dollars out of the Company's negotiation efforts, and reserve them for their own, unrelated departmental projects, if they decide bargaining is a waste of time? Let's allow corporate managers, and investors too, to "opt out" of contributing to management negotiations, and do whatever they think makes sense to them individually. That would be another great step for individual liberty. Tell me -- anyone -- how could that not make sense?
3
The main concern of working people is stagnant wages. Yet they support right-to-work laws, suggesting that they see little or no connection between unions and higher wages. History suggests that this is nonsense. But that is changing. Union support has waned. We have lost faith in the notion that higher wages for you means higher wages for me. Apparently, solidarity was not forever.
11
The unions lost their claim to moral superiority when they started negotiating multi-tier arrangements where new hires are on a different benefit/pay scale than tenured employees. It's either one-for-all or it's not. The funny thing is that there will come a day not so far off when the newer employees who didn't get the rich benefits will be in the majority. When a contract expires and they are offered more pay in return for reduced retiree benefits, the retirees are going to get thrown under the bus. Which is only fair, since the older workers felt like it was fair for the newer employees to work for less money.
1
Another example of American exceptionalism which includes the right to make irrational decisions against one's self-interest. The assault against the middle-class and unions began with Reagan's busting of the Air Traffic Controller's union followed by incessant propaganda against unions for the past 30 years. Last week the Times wrote about how despite low unemployment, wages remain low. In the words of Dr. Phil, how is the anti-union movement working for you?
16
Remember Reagan proudly gushing over ushering in the era of the service sector economy? Yeah...that's what we've got and it's ugly. It's been an ugly 30+ years since that incompetent man reintroduced the idea that demonizing our fellow Americans was a noble act.
10
Just to make a point that is often obscured when using the phrase "American Exceptionalism" was never bragging, it used to indicate a very real qualitative difference that existed in America because we were not subjected to the manipulations and abuses we are now.
Most people weren't as predatory and degenerately avarice driven as they are now. There was a general understanding of the importance of honesty, fairness and Trust which was respected.
Most people weren't as predatory and degenerately avarice driven as they are now. There was a general understanding of the importance of honesty, fairness and Trust which was respected.
Oh yes, you're really against demonization. Unions consciously create a toxic atmosphere of hatred for the employers, the bosses, the motivated and skillful (they make the lazy members look bad and illustrate the absurdity of everyone making the same wage).
Does this law also cover police and firefighters unions? If not, why not?
9
This law covers private sector unions.
The last round covered government employees except for police and firefighters unions. One good reason for excluding public safety unions is that they are not allowed to strike, while all other public unions are. In the event a public safety union and management cannot come to agreement, they are subject to binding medication.
The last round covered government employees except for police and firefighters unions. One good reason for excluding public safety unions is that they are not allowed to strike, while all other public unions are. In the event a public safety union and management cannot come to agreement, they are subject to binding medication.
The losers here are the union workers and Scott Walker. The big money and party bosses are behind Bush, Walker is just a flash in the pan.
5
The issue is basically simple. Workers may receive benefits negotiated with the power of a union without offsetting the expense of the union. If there is a right to work law, then only union members should receive the negotiated benefits. That means other nonunion workers will receive lower wagers, fewer benefits, less health care, and no protection. And eventually when the union crumbles the divided will be conquered (unless workers unite to form an organization to represent themselves, in which case they will invent the wheel all over again)
14
Or, if there are unequal wages, the non-union workers will do the math and say here's how much better I think I'll be as a union member, and this is how much my dues will cost.
What you say makes some sense. However, what if the non union workers not subject to the union contract were actually in some cases paid more than the unionized workers because they made greater contributions which management rewarded?
One of the philosophical reasons for individuals to object to union membership is that when compensation is collectively negotiated, everyone in the same category gets the same pay, even if some employees are more skilled or more productive. The reason why legally the represented non-union workers get the same pay as the dues paying ones is to prevent them from getting higher compensation.
One of the philosophical reasons for individuals to object to union membership is that when compensation is collectively negotiated, everyone in the same category gets the same pay, even if some employees are more skilled or more productive. The reason why legally the represented non-union workers get the same pay as the dues paying ones is to prevent them from getting higher compensation.
1
No, if non-members can negotiate separately, the company will hire the best employees, they will received higher wages because they are more productive, and the union workers with the union mentality will either improve or be fired. Sounds great to me.
1
Those working in states which passed right to work legislation are in complete denial that they are at the mercy of their employer with respect to firing,benefits,wages,overtime, safety-the list goes on and on. These were the very reasons unions were created. Those that think this is so great-good luck! I guess they like working for "slave wages"
15
There are unions in right to work states. If they provide value to the workers they represent, the unions survive and prosper.
1
And who has the most incentive to hire the most productive people: the company.
I have a problem with this story beyond my objections to the legislation reported on. The term "right to work" is a carefully crafted buzz phrase modeled on "right to life", created by clever conservative P.R. people as a euphemism to obfuscate the real goal of said legislative efforts. Namely the destuction of labor unions. Hang a wreath of "economic strengthening", some "job creation" garland and top off with some " Big Government Labor Bosses" tinsel and you're all decorated for Workingmans Christmas.
The fact that Ms Davey puts the phrase in quotation marks preceeded by "known as" doesn't get the job done of exposing the phrase for what it is. The further repeated use of the phrase(sans quotes or anything else) simply hands a propaganda victory to those spinmeisters.
The mainstream media has been suffering from this disease since at least the Reagan Administration (tip-o-the hat to Roger Ailes). Wouldn,t a little straight talk help one and all to understand the issues more clearly? How about "union busting legislation" or "Anti Collective Bargaining State"? I know, it just doesn't have that neat sexy ring to it. I'll try to come up with something better. Just because everyone is boarding the train doesn't mean the destination is where you want to go.
The fact that Ms Davey puts the phrase in quotation marks preceeded by "known as" doesn't get the job done of exposing the phrase for what it is. The further repeated use of the phrase(sans quotes or anything else) simply hands a propaganda victory to those spinmeisters.
The mainstream media has been suffering from this disease since at least the Reagan Administration (tip-o-the hat to Roger Ailes). Wouldn,t a little straight talk help one and all to understand the issues more clearly? How about "union busting legislation" or "Anti Collective Bargaining State"? I know, it just doesn't have that neat sexy ring to it. I'll try to come up with something better. Just because everyone is boarding the train doesn't mean the destination is where you want to go.
17
Do you mean Ronald Reagan, the man who was a member of a union for most of his working life? The irony, eh?
13
The opposite of a right to work state is a closed shop state. What terminology would you apply?
Did he actually have an alternative? The air traffic controllers were legally barred from striking by federal law. If they were unable to negotiate a contract, they and the government were subject to binding mediation. Reagan told them they had 48 hours to return to work or they would be fired. Many returned, the rest were fired and replaced.
I say this as a democrat and someone who believes in unions:
Some union rules do not work well. At my son's school a teacher was out all year with an illness. During that time, the teacher notified the school each month that she still needed to be out, therefore she maintained her hold on the position. Meanwhile students were, for the entire year, served by a series of rotating subs who did not necessarily have an expertise in the subject. This is a rule meant to protect the teacher's right to return to her old job but ends up hurting the students.
My complaint is that those who negotiate these contracts are either not qualified or not knowledgeable enough to understand the repercussions of such a rule. Another part of this is that there should be an automatic review to adjust or throw out rules that are found to be inappropriate or produce unintended circumstances.
Some union rules do not work well. At my son's school a teacher was out all year with an illness. During that time, the teacher notified the school each month that she still needed to be out, therefore she maintained her hold on the position. Meanwhile students were, for the entire year, served by a series of rotating subs who did not necessarily have an expertise in the subject. This is a rule meant to protect the teacher's right to return to her old job but ends up hurting the students.
My complaint is that those who negotiate these contracts are either not qualified or not knowledgeable enough to understand the repercussions of such a rule. Another part of this is that there should be an automatic review to adjust or throw out rules that are found to be inappropriate or produce unintended circumstances.
12
You're actually complaining about unions because a teacher took sick leave and re-certified that she was in fact incapacitated every month (as I'll bet her contract and the school district required), and the administration disn't arrange a single long-term sub.
good grief.
good grief.
5
In our highly rated school district, where the median salary is $134,000, in my elementary school, within 15 minutes after the final bell has rung at the end of the school day, there is not one teacher to be found. Not one is in a classroom providing extra help or remaining later to help a child finish up his or her work. The classes are all empty. One even leaves 10 minutes early. Another teacher covers the dismissal of her class.
If a child needs extra time, he is directed to a specialist, an expensive resource for the district, during classroom hours. No teacher provides any extra help before, during lunch or after school.
Meanwhile, many teachers tutor after school for over $100 per hour.
In the morning, five hundred students arrive within 15 minutes (the allowable drop-off time) creating bedlam and safety issues with large SUV's, etc. When I proposed a longer arrival window (30 minutes), the principal explained that the teachers couldn't come in earlier because they had their own families to attend to.
Unions are not service oriented but bureaucracy oriented. The bureaucracy is created by the union to accommodate the union members' needs.
If a child needs extra time, he is directed to a specialist, an expensive resource for the district, during classroom hours. No teacher provides any extra help before, during lunch or after school.
Meanwhile, many teachers tutor after school for over $100 per hour.
In the morning, five hundred students arrive within 15 minutes (the allowable drop-off time) creating bedlam and safety issues with large SUV's, etc. When I proposed a longer arrival window (30 minutes), the principal explained that the teachers couldn't come in earlier because they had their own families to attend to.
Unions are not service oriented but bureaucracy oriented. The bureaucracy is created by the union to accommodate the union members' needs.
7
The beef you should have is with your school district, not the union. There are plenty of teachers who would love nothing more than a long term substitute position. My district which pays substitutes a much lower daily rate than neighboring districts still had many people applying for long term substitute positions.
6
In Wisconsin, where I grew up, the deer hunting, religiously conservative white man still rules the state. Unfortunately, he is the guy who increasingly resents the liberal Madison and Milwaukee crowd and seeks to punish everything they stand for including unions. There is a big chip on the shoulder of rural Wisconsin macho culture that is easily exploited by savvy Republican politicians. These are the guys who will never feel comfortable if women, blacks, and unions share the decision making process. To put it in language that they will understand, "You guys just cut off your nose to spite your face!"
15
Most of the guys who work in rural areas are either self-empoyed, or work for businesses with a handful of employees. They don't see how unions could benefit them, and they are largely correct.
8
Unions never welcomed women or minorities until forced by federal laws. Trade unions in particular were a vehicle for excluding Blacks, because you had be recommended by a current member to be allowed to join.
People in non-union environments know you have to be good and constantly strive to be better to survive. They look unions, where, once you're in, skill, determination. ambition are dirty words and they say, "no way".
“It’s designed to depress wages and to help them win elections in the future,” ... if it's designed to depress wages, how will that help them win elections in the future?
2
Doesn't matter since the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people and money is speech. Easy peasy.
5
It's because many white working class people don't realize that the life they take for granted is the direct result of old union battles. They vote against their self-interest.
15
Well at the moment, they are attempting to blame the depressed wages on the Democrat in the White House. SOP.
3
This story (Big Union propaganda piece really) misses a critical point:
Walker is fighting public sector unions - NOT private sector unions.
PSUs have ruined unions - PSUs want a forced choice - they are not concerned with the people they represent - their only interest is money and political power.
Big Union needs to change - it's not the 1950s anymore.
Walker is fighting public sector unions - NOT private sector unions.
PSUs have ruined unions - PSUs want a forced choice - they are not concerned with the people they represent - their only interest is money and political power.
Big Union needs to change - it's not the 1950s anymore.
4
Your missing the critical point, he passed legislation banning public sector unions in 2010. This law covers private sector unions. Check your facts.
5
If you have the freedom to not join a union, why should you then be forced to pay that union's dues?
3
If you are working in a job that has union negotiated wages benefits is why you should pay the dues. You don't have to join but you should have to pay for the services rendered.
The reason for this insidious and misleadingly described law is because GOPers know that Unions will provide the service for the person who does not pay dues anyway. By continuing to increase ignorance with Double Speak and misleading statements they increase the numbers of people covered who do not pay and eventually bankrupt the Union and the ignorant will assume the union is at fault for its own destruction.
The reason for this insidious and misleadingly described law is because GOPers know that Unions will provide the service for the person who does not pay dues anyway. By continuing to increase ignorance with Double Speak and misleading statements they increase the numbers of people covered who do not pay and eventually bankrupt the Union and the ignorant will assume the union is at fault for its own destruction.
6
magicisnotreal earth:
If you don't want to join, you should not be coerced into paying. You are simply arguing for that coercion.
If you don't want to join, you should not be coerced into paying. You are simply arguing for that coercion.
2
No I am "simply" Pointing out that the dues are not coerced which implies extortion.
The fees are for a service, which is exponentially more valuable to the payer than the fee itself.
No one is being forced to join a union, they are being charged a fee for services that have been and will be rendered.
The real question your argument raises is "If you really do not want to be associated with Unions why would you apply to work at a Union Shop?"
The fees are for a service, which is exponentially more valuable to the payer than the fee itself.
No one is being forced to join a union, they are being charged a fee for services that have been and will be rendered.
The real question your argument raises is "If you really do not want to be associated with Unions why would you apply to work at a Union Shop?"
7
Next he will ram a law through to eliminate the 48 hour waiting period to obtain a gun. He has an NRA speech coming up and surely will have to brag about what he's done in Wisconsin to get a standing ovation from them.....and $$$.
Then after that, he will destroy benefits for the frail elderly, physically and developmentally disabled. It's in his budget and he'll need something to brag about to his conservative buddies in regard to how he is holding "entitlements" down in His State of Wisconsin.
It is his state of Wisconsin, too. It surely isn't the Wisconsin many of us who grew up here, lived here all our lives, and unfortunately will need to live here under his siege and longer, have ever known.
I wish people would quit asking how this happened. It's embarrassing enough. Truth is, obviously not enough Democrats voted in off-presidential years and Walker's got his lieutenant Republican legislature playing his games to move him onward in his conservative regime.
It's pretty interesting the parochial schools are begging people to "sign up" for FREE parochial education for their children because Walker is forcing us taxpayers to pay for vouchers for kids to go to parochial schools --- money right to the churches' antes. In addition the destruction of the UW system on its way.
Oh, Scott Walker has plenty up his sleeve. Too bad it's for his constant on-going campaign (now presidential) speeches instead of the good of our state.
Then after that, he will destroy benefits for the frail elderly, physically and developmentally disabled. It's in his budget and he'll need something to brag about to his conservative buddies in regard to how he is holding "entitlements" down in His State of Wisconsin.
It is his state of Wisconsin, too. It surely isn't the Wisconsin many of us who grew up here, lived here all our lives, and unfortunately will need to live here under his siege and longer, have ever known.
I wish people would quit asking how this happened. It's embarrassing enough. Truth is, obviously not enough Democrats voted in off-presidential years and Walker's got his lieutenant Republican legislature playing his games to move him onward in his conservative regime.
It's pretty interesting the parochial schools are begging people to "sign up" for FREE parochial education for their children because Walker is forcing us taxpayers to pay for vouchers for kids to go to parochial schools --- money right to the churches' antes. In addition the destruction of the UW system on its way.
Oh, Scott Walker has plenty up his sleeve. Too bad it's for his constant on-going campaign (now presidential) speeches instead of the good of our state.
13
Right to work laws effectively leave employers dominant in the labor market, so labor tends to share such an meager portion of the productivity to which they contribute that they have very little if any surplus income. This means that business owners can retain more of the new wealth which their businesses create which is why the folks who do not consider labor important to the growth of any economy are so enthusiastic about "right to work" legislation. It also means that labor tends not to be able to much more than they have previously and cannot contribute to the growth of the economy. If's a case of short sighted greed leading to diminished opportunities over the long run.
7
Workers in a right to work state are free to organize. If they believe that an employer is being unfair or underpaying them or is responsible , nothing prevents them from forming a union.
Capital has far more constraints than labor. Business works under anti-trust legislation; unions are exempted. Customer can change their purchasing at will; employers can't hire and fire at will. Employees can change employers at will, see last sentence for employers. Once an investment in plant and equipment is made, the company is stuck. Employees, to repeat, can leave at will.
Generally the right to opt out of a union and its dues is *not* accompanied by a right of the union to ignore you when it negotiates with the employer. I am a union member (only 40% of us are at my organization) and I would *absolutely support* any right-to-work law that would allow my union to thumb its nose at all of my non-member colleagues. Why do you think they are not bothering to be members? Because they are still guaranteed to receive whatever *my* union negotiates. Obviously a law that requires unions to assist nonpaying nonmembers is going to crush unions. It's like requiring Starbucks to hand out free coffee in the street.
10
Well, then tell them they are free to negotiate their own wage and benefit packages.
3
You seem to have entirely missed the points of his comment. The point is that they are not required to negotiate on their own behalf. They necessarily benefit from the negotiations done by the union but now would not have to contribute to the costs. How anyone supports that is beyond me.
3
My union can't do that; that's my point--right-to-work laws never allow the union to take reciprocal action by refusing to represent nonmember employees who work alongside union employees at the same organization. This is why they are just a code for "union-busting." It's legalized snuffing of the organization, plain and simple.
4
Union dues can reasonably be classified among the general expenses of having a job (commuting costs, professional attire) So it's hard for me to think of the expense as an affront to the worker.
13
So the "protection" money that organized crime extracts from a business is just another expense? union dues are just a legalized form of extortion.
Is working for minimum wage freedom? Arizona has the same problem with low wages. Join a union, pay dues, organize. Oppose tyranny.
18
I will go out out of my way not to visit the once great state of Wisconsin.
14
Both "right-to-work" and "freedom-to-work" are misnomers. Call it race-to-the-bottom or freedom-to-be-exploited-and-gloat.
11
How do you know a GOPer is lying? His mouth is moving.
But seriously folks here are some key "Double Speak" words and concepts the GOP use to deceive you.
"choice" the most effective and common one they use. The choice is always false and framed dishonestly.
"right to work law" actually means "the destroy unions law"
"competition" - means rigged field where their guy cannot lose.
"Free Market" - rigged market where only their guy can win.
"informed decision" - making the call that has been dogma all along in spite of the facts not because of them.
"voters rights" - Making sure as many opponents as possible cannot vote.
I'm sure many of you can add more. let's expose these misuses of language as its the only way back to the right path for the nation.
But seriously folks here are some key "Double Speak" words and concepts the GOP use to deceive you.
"choice" the most effective and common one they use. The choice is always false and framed dishonestly.
"right to work law" actually means "the destroy unions law"
"competition" - means rigged field where their guy cannot lose.
"Free Market" - rigged market where only their guy can win.
"informed decision" - making the call that has been dogma all along in spite of the facts not because of them.
"voters rights" - Making sure as many opponents as possible cannot vote.
I'm sure many of you can add more. let's expose these misuses of language as its the only way back to the right path for the nation.
13
It’s interesting how the middle class – or what’s left of it – can be persuaded (thanks to ‘Citizens’ United etc.) to support policians who don’t necessarily have those voters’ best interests in mind The trouble is that if the pendulum is pushed too far to the right and the promises of prosperity prove to be an illusion, that same pendulum may one day swing violently to the left – ushering leaders most of us wouldn’t want.
Unions aren’t the problem per se - it’s that they became too powerful. In their current weakened state unions, are much less the obstacles to progress that they once were. Republicans seem like those generals ‘fighting the last war’ who get blindsided by an enemy they failed to recognize – and even may have helped to create.
Unions aren’t the problem per se - it’s that they became too powerful. In their current weakened state unions, are much less the obstacles to progress that they once were. Republicans seem like those generals ‘fighting the last war’ who get blindsided by an enemy they failed to recognize – and even may have helped to create.
27
In their current weekend state, the unions are powerless to stop union busters, like Walker, and the ruthless lackeys of the Koch boys!
1
Read American history, blood shed for the right to living wages, humane work hours and safe conditions, days off, child labor laws, then tell me about how, "right to work," laws work out for employees. To this day neither I nor my family, including grandparents, will cross a picket line in support of working people, literally one of the more important foundations for a strong democracy. Maybe Walker's Corporate dogma of, "right to work," sounds good, as fairy stories sound good to the imaginations of innocent children who haven't experienced or cant remember. But I remember. Allow these anti-union laws to expand and sadly be forced by Corporatists to relearn from painful experience that this is a travesty waiting to peak. " Owe my soul to the company store, " never, I hope, for me and my family.
Too, David Hearn wrote an excellent comment below, also in the NYT picks, explaining something about Unions that many commentators here don't seem to understand, Check it out, please.
Too, David Hearn wrote an excellent comment below, also in the NYT picks, explaining something about Unions that many commentators here don't seem to understand, Check it out, please.
8
Hey, make this pretty simple and straightforward. If you pay union dues, you get all the raises and benefits that are negotiated by the union. Don't join the union, you're on your own to negotiate for yourself. Good luck!
11
By this logic, I shouldn't have to cover the property taxes of local churches whose beliefs I don't share, or the tax breaks and tax loopholes taken by corporations who donate to politicians whom I don't support.
Will that be the next fight by conservatives?
Nah. Consistency in the application of principles is for suckers.
Will that be the next fight by conservatives?
Nah. Consistency in the application of principles is for suckers.
15
People are afraid to protest because they may lose their jobs if they are caught participating or they are too poor to take off from work. Try finding another good paying job. The job market is kept depressed on purpose by businesses and their puppet politician friends to perpetuate a slave labor class. In a depressed labor force, the employees have all the control and they like it that way. A union is for the worker. Kill the union and kill the worker's ability to provide a decent quality of life for his or her family. It's insidious and immoral that these politicians are allowed to destroy the middle class on behalf of their corporate donors. It has continued unabated since Reagan.
13
The fact that giving workers a choice to join or not join unions is hurting unions tells you all you need to know. The fact that union leadership is fighting so hard to remove that choice speaks to the abject corruption of the modern day labor movement.
10
I believe the objection is actually that Walker clearly said he wouldn't do this, that his motives have to do with primaries in a far-right party, and that workers wer never forced to join a union in the first place.
29
It is a false "choice". It's "Double Speak". The worker in question are being hired at union shops. The benefits and wages are why the worker is applying there.
The union already exists and has done the contract negotiations and hired the lawyers and been monitoring the application of that contract.
The fact that the worker does not understand the dues pay for that and for the future negotiations and future problem solving or legal fights should not get them the right to refuse payment for a service they are benefiting from.
That POV assumes something that almost never exists in tgeh US a benevolent employer. Not even google which spends a lot of money making itself look good is benevolent.
The union already exists and has done the contract negotiations and hired the lawyers and been monitoring the application of that contract.
The fact that the worker does not understand the dues pay for that and for the future negotiations and future problem solving or legal fights should not get them the right to refuse payment for a service they are benefiting from.
That POV assumes something that almost never exists in tgeh US a benevolent employer. Not even google which spends a lot of money making itself look good is benevolent.
6
The fact that unions drive wages and benefits higher for the average worker and that cuts into the massive increases in COO, CEO, and CFO pay tells you all you need to know. The fact that big business is trying to destroy unions speaks to the abject corruption of modern corporate America.
12
Maybe the Cheeseheads should change their nickname to Meatheads, because the voters of Wisconsin are allowing themsleves to be suckered on an epic scale by a weasel of a politician with grand ambitions and subnormal intelligence - not generally a real happy combo in leadership. Meanwhile, their state's economy continues to underperform, its once world-class university system struggles, and its reputation begins to look more like Mississippi than neighboring Minnesota or Iowa. Welcome to the wonderful world of Kochdom. It is Pottersville without the angel intervening.
13
This man is a puppet of the Kochs. The tactic of the very rich has always been to divide the middle and lower classes by making them feel that some just below them on the economic ladder is to blame for your problems (illegals, unions, people who don't look like you). Conquer and divide. Twenty five percent of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. We are an uneducated easily manipulated bunch..and this is not accident. Isn't Gov. Walker the genius who a few weeks ago suggested that ISIS and Iran were aligned with one another?
13
"Right to Work" is dishonest because it permits people to benefit from benefits obtained by unions and not pay dues. To compound this the people that do pay have to pay more for the people that don't. It is a typical war against people that Republicans relish.
13
As Wisconsin enters the brave new world of economic slavery America's plutocrats are uncorking bottles of champagne and smoking Cuban cigars in their teak paneled boardrooms.
14
One has to marvel at the GOP's ability to get working people to vote against their own self-interests and in favor of the interests of the 1% ruling class.
I am sure the Founding Fathers did not have a return to feudalism in mind when they declared independence from Great Britain, but that is obviously the direction this country is headed in. Why don't we just get it over now and anoint one of the Koch brothers (let them fight it out) as King of America?!
I am sure the Founding Fathers did not have a return to feudalism in mind when they declared independence from Great Britain, but that is obviously the direction this country is headed in. Why don't we just get it over now and anoint one of the Koch brothers (let them fight it out) as King of America?!
14
I don't think that ensuring the right of public employees to collective bargaining aids working people. The only people aided are the public employees who receive protection from the consequences of their own incompetence or mediocrity.
3
Except this bill was aimed at PRIVATE sector unions.
9
It's gratifying to see the Republicans are so concerned about people being forced to pay for things against their will.
In the spirit of the Republican Party, I propose that people also be allowed to opt out of being taxed to support war, to build sports stadiums and nuclear power plants, and be able to opt out of responsibility for the massive debt being run up by trillions of dollars in tax cuts for Fortune 500 companies and the super rich. Freedom!
In the spirit of the Republican Party, I propose that people also be allowed to opt out of being taxed to support war, to build sports stadiums and nuclear power plants, and be able to opt out of responsibility for the massive debt being run up by trillions of dollars in tax cuts for Fortune 500 companies and the super rich. Freedom!
19
Thank goodness for politicians like Governor Walker who will not be intimidated by government and public service worker unions. Somebody is finally looking out for the best interests of the taxpayers and wants to cut the cost of government.
10
So why is Minnesota doing so well economically and it has unions? "Somebody is finally looking out for the best interests of taxpayers...." Yeah, his name is Mark Dayton.
7
Governor Walker is looking out for the best interests of the tax EVADERS.
1
Let's test whether the supporters of "right to work" laws are consistent or are hypocrites.
Supporters of RTW laws do not want their union dues going to political causes with which they disagree.
Suppose I own stock in XYZ Corp.
Presumably I am a part owner of XYZ Corp.
But I and other stockholders can not prohibit XYZ from donating to candidates or causes we disagree with.
If the CEO of XYZ wants to do donate to some candidate /cause he should do it only with his own personal money and not use corporate funds.
If he uses corporate funds he is using money of a disapproving stockholder.
Will supporters of RTW laws support laws requiring corporate donations to be only made from the personal funds of the corporation's execs.
Supporters of RTW laws do not want their union dues going to political causes with which they disagree.
Suppose I own stock in XYZ Corp.
Presumably I am a part owner of XYZ Corp.
But I and other stockholders can not prohibit XYZ from donating to candidates or causes we disagree with.
If the CEO of XYZ wants to do donate to some candidate /cause he should do it only with his own personal money and not use corporate funds.
If he uses corporate funds he is using money of a disapproving stockholder.
Will supporters of RTW laws support laws requiring corporate donations to be only made from the personal funds of the corporation's execs.
10
David,
It is obvious that you don't own any stock. If enough shareholders disagree with the policies of a corporation, including but not limited to its "Politics" they can vote to replace the Directors in order to change those policies. The members and others who contribute money to union locals have no such option as the policies there are set by the national or international leadership without any local input.
It is obvious that you don't own any stock. If enough shareholders disagree with the policies of a corporation, including but not limited to its "Politics" they can vote to replace the Directors in order to change those policies. The members and others who contribute money to union locals have no such option as the policies there are set by the national or international leadership without any local input.
This is ridiculously untrue. While there are general policies, local unions elect their own leadership, attend all meetings and yell pretty much as loud as they want, and vote by secret ballot on all contracts and MOUs.
Can't you people defend your ideas without these fairy tales?
Can't you people defend your ideas without these fairy tales?
5
Richard, You are wrong. Union Membership does have the right to vote for national leadership. Why one would be opposed to legislation that assisted the working person is beyond my ability to figure out.
BTW "International" in a Union name in north American means Canada and the US and no one else.
BTW "International" in a Union name in north American means Canada and the US and no one else.
5
With these laws, individual workers are free to bargain with their employers over wages and working conditions. In a tight labor market where they can easily switch jobs, they have some bargaining power, but as long as unemployment can be kept high in their fields, they do not. Similarly, individual states can bargain with international corporations over policies that affect these corporations, and the corporations can move some operations to other states if they are unhappy. A very successful state will be able to pick and choose the industries it wants to attract or keep away, but other states will get the industries that are undesirable because of abuse of workers or the environment.
It's only fair, then, that workers who choose to not join a union have to negotiate their salary and benefits individually. They can be paid less than the union minimum and they may have to go without sick days, paid vacation, or maternity leave unless they can get an employer to agree to pay them more than is required by law. (And what employer will pay more if they can get away with paying less?) If the workers won't support the unions, they lose the right to take advantage of the worker protections provided by the unions. You can't have it both ways.
13
I am very OK with representing myself before management. If management is smart they will pass on the savings from not having grievance hearing, arbitrations, etc, to nonunion workers. I would make it a policy to pay nonunion workers more because of the lower personnel costs.
1
Unions don't work that way. The purpose and intention behind the concept of them is to protect all workers not just members. This is why the GOP have landed on this insidious way of destroying them. They know it will be a burden for them and that many people do not understand that dues are not a burden.
6
You really believe this? Good luck with that......
1
1. Workers had the right to pay dues, pay what's called, "agency fee," at maybe 70% of dues, or opt out of paying a dime before this. It's Federal law, and has been for years.
2. What Walker's doing is the equivalent of yelling about taxpayer support for abortions, which the Hyde Amendment has banned since the 1980s. he's doing it to get through the primaries of a Party that has lost its mind.
3. Walker--look it up!--said loud and clear for years that he wouldn't do this. he'll be after reproductive rights next.
You're being suckered, folks.
2. What Walker's doing is the equivalent of yelling about taxpayer support for abortions, which the Hyde Amendment has banned since the 1980s. he's doing it to get through the primaries of a Party that has lost its mind.
3. Walker--look it up!--said loud and clear for years that he wouldn't do this. he'll be after reproductive rights next.
You're being suckered, folks.
11
A "Right to Work Law" is sold as "protecting and preserving" the rights of people seeking jobs. That's a lie. The purpose of a "Right to Work Law" is to restrict the range of contract provisions that a labor organization may negotiate. "Right to Work" denies labor organizations the same contract negotiating powers enjoyed by all other organizations.
Suppose I propose a contract whereby my business will be the "exclusive" provider of cleaning and security services for your 10 buildings. I stipulate that you may select some persons for hire, but those persons will immediately go to work for me, for my company, wearing my uniforms, and following my policies, such as my policy forbidding the use of cleaning products containing "ammonia". Most people would say... that's fine, it's in the contract. So we sign the contract and away we go.
Right to Work says that Unions are not allowed to negotiate these type provisions. For example, under Right to Work, a labor organization cannot stipulate that new employees must join the union, or pay a monthly fee. "Right to Work singles unions out and says "you can't negotiate certain contract provisions".
This is an attack on an organization's ability to negotiate a full range of provisions in their contracts. Labor organizations are assigned 2nd class citizen status with respect to the right to negotiate contract provisions. The intent is to cripple the union's negotiating strength, giving all the power to one side of the table.
Suppose I propose a contract whereby my business will be the "exclusive" provider of cleaning and security services for your 10 buildings. I stipulate that you may select some persons for hire, but those persons will immediately go to work for me, for my company, wearing my uniforms, and following my policies, such as my policy forbidding the use of cleaning products containing "ammonia". Most people would say... that's fine, it's in the contract. So we sign the contract and away we go.
Right to Work says that Unions are not allowed to negotiate these type provisions. For example, under Right to Work, a labor organization cannot stipulate that new employees must join the union, or pay a monthly fee. "Right to Work singles unions out and says "you can't negotiate certain contract provisions".
This is an attack on an organization's ability to negotiate a full range of provisions in their contracts. Labor organizations are assigned 2nd class citizen status with respect to the right to negotiate contract provisions. The intent is to cripple the union's negotiating strength, giving all the power to one side of the table.
8
I understand the appeal of this man to the tea party- blue collar kind Wisconsinites (a college drop-out, he is literally one of them) ... but what are the other half of voters doing enabling this guy as he plows through workers rights in his way to his presidential fantasy? This is so absurd.
8
"plows through workers rights"
The fact is Walker is increasing worker's rights by allowing them the right not to pay extortion money to be allowed to work. How is it fair that workers have to pay representatives of the democrat party in order to have a job?
The fact is Walker is increasing worker's rights by allowing them the right not to pay extortion money to be allowed to work. How is it fair that workers have to pay representatives of the democrat party in order to have a job?
3
@jacobi:
Do you also call for non-dues-paying workers to NOT have the same benefits negotiated on their behalf by union representatives?
Will you stand by quietly as dues payers make a higher salary and have better benefits as their non-dues-paying co-workers?
My guess: Nope. Anyone who thinks "workers have to pay representatives of the democrat party in order to have a job" hasn't a clue about the historical relationship between labor and capital.
Do you also call for non-dues-paying workers to NOT have the same benefits negotiated on their behalf by union representatives?
Will you stand by quietly as dues payers make a higher salary and have better benefits as their non-dues-paying co-workers?
My guess: Nope. Anyone who thinks "workers have to pay representatives of the democrat party in order to have a job" hasn't a clue about the historical relationship between labor and capital.
8
It's Democratic Party; even Herbert Hoover always called it that, if you even know who he was (he was an honest man btw, unlike Deadeye). Union reps are not part of the Democratic Party; I've known more than one that were conservative - yes, I was surprised too. The Teamsters endorsed Nixon.
3
These laws need to be called by their full name "Right to Work Without Paying Dues" as the abbreviated version gives a false impression that these laws somehow benefit workers.
I am always amazed that so called "small government conservatives" have no problem inserting the big hand of government into labor contracts between the private entities of business and it's workers.
I am always amazed that so called "small government conservatives" have no problem inserting the big hand of government into labor contracts between the private entities of business and it's workers.
13
You mean like the NLRB?
2
Scott Walker and other Republicans of his ilk hate workers. They hate the poor. They hate the working class. They hate the middle class. It's so obvious, as law after law after law is passed that weakens workers' rights and insures continued wage stagnation. At the same time, of course, laws that benefit the rich and other masters of these lapdogs are also passed.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
8
I don't get the extreme hate for this by so many democrats. It doesn't outlaw unions, it doesn't do anything but give the option to not be in it/pay dues if you don't want to! I've worked construction before and had to join the carpenters Union and pay a ridiculous amount of my paycheck to union dues so I'm personally not a big union supporter, but if they are the best option in a particular industry and location - they will still be the same. It just ends the (ironically enough) monopoly they have on so many types of workers
3
Yeah, your pay, benefits, safe working conditions, protections against a crazy boss, OSHA safeguards--hardly anything worth paying for.
It's a complete accident that skilled carpenters make so much. Or wait...it's just a sign if the decency and good-heartedness of the boss.
It's a complete accident that skilled carpenters make so much. Or wait...it's just a sign if the decency and good-heartedness of the boss.
2
One reason Democrats dislike this is because it targets and is supported by low information voters. You know, ones like carpenters who received the benefits of a union but were upset that they had to contribute to the entity that obtained those benefits for them.
2
First off "right to work" is just plain wrong, even in quotes. What it is, to be precise, is the right freeload on your fellow, union brothers and sisters. But where is the analysis on emplyment and wages in states than have laws like Wisconsin vs. those that do not? those living in Wisconsin would be advised to remeber the words of Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
5
No small irony here: Like it or not, union have democratically elected leaders. Corporations do not. Yet corporations are exalted by GOP politicians, and unions are demonized.
FDR's comment about 'economic royalists' seems well suited to this occasion.
FDR's comment about 'economic royalists' seems well suited to this occasion.
10
Why do you say that? Stockholders vote for corporate leaders every year. Boards of Directors have been tossed out, and more of that is happening every day.
Good.
Workers should not be forced to make financial contributions (otherwise known as union dues) to the Democrat party.
Workers should not be forced to make financial contributions (otherwise known as union dues) to the Democrat party.
9
Right, they should use that money to pay for social services for the underpaid employees of the large corporations who buy politicians like Scott Walker.
8
Nobody is forcing anyone to take a union job. So what's the big deal? Get another job. That's what we tell Walmart workers, right?
11
If unions are so great, wouldn't people volunteer to pay dues instead of being forced to pay them?
10
That question assumes the "People" in question know the facts. If they are misinformed or do not understand what the dues pay for how could they make the "choice"?
2
Because many people are penny wise and pound foolish.
6
People would be OK with giving up a lot of costs if they still benefited.
2
Citizens United gave union money the right of free speech. What better way to make sure that it doesn't get heard than to limit the cash speaking.
4
This doesn't limit the amount of cash speaking. All it does is eliminate the ability of the unions to force workers to pay for it. Those who really believe that they are getting their money's worth from their dues are free to continue paying dues, and to give more to make up the difference.
3
Here's a simple question for those who defend this law by saying it helps workers: If they care so much about the working man, then why do the Scott Walkers of the world never try to pass legislation that raises the minimum wage, that provides health insurance, that gives maternity leave, that gives any material benefit at all to the working person?
260
Illogical.
This is a Straw Man fallacy
Governors are not the HR department
This is a Straw Man fallacy
Governors are not the HR department
1
Pssst...HR departments don't set wages, or any of that other stuff. Governors and legislators and CEOs/Boards do.
4
Quite easy to answer that. These "rights" don't come from government. Government changes its mind. Notice?
These rights to all you mentioned- and more-- are yours to enjoy after you have earned them. You work hard in any of my companies and these benefits are larded upon you.
In a Union you get these rights when you walk in the door and can breathe into a mirror. Think that's right?
These rights to all you mentioned- and more-- are yours to enjoy after you have earned them. You work hard in any of my companies and these benefits are larded upon you.
In a Union you get these rights when you walk in the door and can breathe into a mirror. Think that's right?
The real right to work:
Right to work for a fair wage
Right to work with a voice in negotiations
Right to work in a safe workplace
Right to work without fear of discrimination
Right to work without fear of getting fired for no reason
Right to work and get paid for overtime
Right to work and have time for family
Right to work and have a few paid vacation days a year
The real right to work only exists because of unions. Unions function because together workers have the power to give voice to the employee, the middle class, the family. Unions need dues to maintain the power to push back against the disproportionate power of the employer.
Right to work for a fair wage
Right to work with a voice in negotiations
Right to work in a safe workplace
Right to work without fear of discrimination
Right to work without fear of getting fired for no reason
Right to work and get paid for overtime
Right to work and have time for family
Right to work and have a few paid vacation days a year
The real right to work only exists because of unions. Unions function because together workers have the power to give voice to the employee, the middle class, the family. Unions need dues to maintain the power to push back against the disproportionate power of the employer.
32
Didn't everyone already realize Mr. Walker is anti-worker? It makes him the perfect Republican nominee for any office!
5
"Right to work". Be weary any time the right has a euphemism for something. "Right to work" actually means "right to get fired".
17
And if you're a poor non-performing employee, the employer should have the right to fire you.
1
Yes, like everyone else .. i.e. right to far the guy that comes to work drunk, stoned, unwilling to do his/her job .. if the company management is abusive, then union's will prosper
They always had that right. Now, if you voice support for a union, they can fire you for no reason (because you spoke your mind).
5
That's wonderful. The people in Wisconsin have more freedom today. I'm jealous.
3
We received this "freedom" back in the early '80's here in Idaho and we soon saw a decline in quality jobs and incomes. We are ranked next to last in the United States for the disappearance of the middle class. Only one state has a faster shrinking middle class than Idaho. And no everyone is not getting rich. We have the lowest wages in the west and when people move here and see what the pay is like it comes as a real shock. With the help of this law Idaho has become the most red state in the union. You can get a gun in Idaho but you cannot get a good public education, the Republicans have seen to that. I feel very sorry for the people of Wisconsin.
9
Did Walker produce historical data showing the ways in which right-to-work laws benefit laborers?
14
Job growth has been higher in RTW states while forced union states are losing businesses. Why do you think Sealed Air Products, Spector Group Headquarters left New Jersey for Charlotte, NC? Mercedes Benz transferring their headquarters to Atlanta? Mercedes is building a plant to produce the Sprinter in South Carolina. A 500 million dollars investment and 1000 jobs to start. Since 2010 The Northeast has lost nearly 1,000,000 residents heading South for jobs.
5
NYHuguenot - Take a look at Wisoncon's economic stats since Walker took over. They're declining steadily.
Texas has lots of job growth, lots of low paying jobs without benefits. Guess who ends up bearing the brunt of that?
Texas has lots of job growth, lots of low paying jobs without benefits. Guess who ends up bearing the brunt of that?
11
DR:
Thanks to the "Obama recovery".
Which is why we need a republican in the White House -- for growth in jobs AND wage AND labor force participation.
Thanks to the "Obama recovery".
Which is why we need a republican in the White House -- for growth in jobs AND wage AND labor force participation.
Unions brought an end to slave-like conditions for American workers in the early 20th century. Now we are returning to low wages, no benefits and massive part-time unstable employment. When companies like Walmart place donation boxes so clients can leave food and clothing for their below-poverty level employees, you know we have sunk to a very low state for wages and worker protection. Anti-union is anti-middle class. Maybe that is why the middle class has all but disappeared. Shame on Walker, shame n the Wisconsin electorate.
41
Other than bankrupting companies, states and local governments, what have the unions done in the last 100 years?
2
I take it that you work six and a half days a week for $2.50 an hour, have no health benefits, and no hope of decent retirement.
Good to know.
Good to know.
1
What states have been bankrupted by unions?
1
if people want to pay to be in the union, they can. it is that simple. legislation like this gives them a choice. if they thought it was worthwhile, they would pay for it. most don't because they realize that the big beneficiaries are the union bosses who live large off of the workers dues. and the politicians get all up in arms about it because those same union bosses get them elected. its a pathetic cycle. good for scott walker signing off on ending it.
6
This will just replace the greed of the "union bosses" with the greed of the corporate bosses...the middle class will not benefit one iota. In fact it will suffer.
13
If this is so great why are cops and firemen exempt?
8
They had a choice before, you know. Or more exactly, you don't know what you're talking about.
It'd be hilarious to see you guys going off about the genius and efficiency and modesty and frugality of guys like Jamie Diamond, if it weren't for the fact that so many people get hurt.
It'd be hilarious to see you guys going off about the genius and efficiency and modesty and frugality of guys like Jamie Diamond, if it weren't for the fact that so many people get hurt.
5
This is another attack on the middle class.
It is a well known fact (the Left loves to tell you their opinions are "facts" so that you can not question them) that the only decent jobs in the country are union jobs.
Except for Apple, Google, LinkedIn, eBay, Costco, Facebook, the Big 4 accounting firms, Adobe, USAA, Microsoft, etc. etc. etc.
It is a well known fact (the Left loves to tell you their opinions are "facts" so that you can not question them) that the only decent jobs in the country are union jobs.
Except for Apple, Google, LinkedIn, eBay, Costco, Facebook, the Big 4 accounting firms, Adobe, USAA, Microsoft, etc. etc. etc.
5
Yeah, Costco and e-Bay...really well known for their extraordinary pay and benefits for the average joe or jill. Good work protections, too.
By the way and not that you'll care, but guilds and unions are different. The highly-paid Americans working for Apple, Google et al are in essence guild members.
So who needs unions? Well, all the people who make the stuff and stock your shelves. The Chinese workers who made your i-Phone, unfortunately, can't join a union.
It seems that the communist central government--like you--sees unions as a threat to government control, and an undermining of businesses.
By the way and not that you'll care, but guilds and unions are different. The highly-paid Americans working for Apple, Google et al are in essence guild members.
So who needs unions? Well, all the people who make the stuff and stock your shelves. The Chinese workers who made your i-Phone, unfortunately, can't join a union.
It seems that the communist central government--like you--sees unions as a threat to government control, and an undermining of businesses.
8
except as good paying as those jobs are they are also not secure jobs. 'layoffs' are a regular occurrence. long hours are expected. as for the 'sharing' community, the pay is not great and the IRS and insurance companies are waking up. costco? ha!
1
Here in the real world there are only so many tech jobs to go around and the existence of those tech jobs doesn't help people who live in places where companies like Walmart are the major employer.
4
But will the new right be enforced. Seems plenty of states have this law, but then they let unions continue to operate with effectively closed shops.
Closed shop with respect to being in the bargaining unit... not closed shop with respect to having to join the union.
Right to work laws; what a crock. Right to free ride; right to crush unions. Right to ultimately put corporations in total control. Anyone who works for a living should thank the union leaders of old for many of the benefits they have enjoyed over the years like paid vacation and sick days. As unions have been attacked more and more and union membership has declined the 8 hour day, fair wages, paid vacation, paid sick days and even real jobs where in the workers is an employee not an "independent contractor" have declined along with it. But don't worry I am sure the guy on the line can really negotiate with the CEO of a Fortune 500 company all on his own for a fair wage. Sure he can.
17
You're missing the entire main point that it DOESNT outlaw unions. You're concerned about not being able to get fair conditions if you're not in the union - then still be in the union! All it does is not force everyone else who doesn't want to be in the union to be in the union
3
If he wants to he should have that option... if he wants to engage with collective bargaining with like minded employees he should have that option too. What should not be allowed is for his fellow employees make that decision for him.
3
In other words, the right to work for minimum wage and to be abused in the process.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
23
There will be lots of talk about inequality, wage stagnation, and the struggles to achieve and maintain a middle class living standard from now until the 2016 election. We progressives need to hang this around the neck of Scott Walker and all the other Republicans. We can't let them get away with talk about helping the middle class when this shows where their priorities really are. They're the party of the Koch brothers and the 1%.
19
The 1% only have 1% of the vote.
2
Congratulations, America - your bargaining power now resides with oligarchs, the Walton-Walmart family and the Republican School of Plantation Economics.
Unions are not perfect by any stretch, but at least they give a modicum of power to the average guy instead of to millionaires and billionaires who already wield vast control over America's workers.
Welcome to the Third World, America.
It took the right-wing GOP a few decades to get us here, but they have accomplished their goal of modern feudalism.
Unions are not perfect by any stretch, but at least they give a modicum of power to the average guy instead of to millionaires and billionaires who already wield vast control over America's workers.
Welcome to the Third World, America.
It took the right-wing GOP a few decades to get us here, but they have accomplished their goal of modern feudalism.
214
This law was written by Koch-supported ALEC. It is not in the interests of the people of Wisconsin, and is primarily a campaign burnisher for Governor Walker who wants to turn the nation into a slave camp for the 1%. The Republicans know when they have a patsy on the hook, like with George W. Bush, and they will back Walker as the surest bet for White House Puppet-in-Chief they have. This man has no original thought in his head, but he is deeply ambitious. This combination--ruthless drive for power combined with little integrity and no brains is fatally dangerous for the nation. He has led Wisconsin down the path to despair. Let him not do this to the nation.
12
Mr. Beeman, You said, "This law was written by Koch-supported ALEC." How do you know that? Are you simply expressing an opinion or a fact? Please share with me.
Walker never mentioned an attack on public unions
before he was elected.
He mislead, to say the least.
Then, while dismantling those same public-sector unions,
Walker called the private-sector unions his allies.
He lied, plain and simple.
Please, America:
Don't let what's happening to my beautiful state
happen to my (still) beautiful country.
before he was elected.
He mislead, to say the least.
Then, while dismantling those same public-sector unions,
Walker called the private-sector unions his allies.
He lied, plain and simple.
Please, America:
Don't let what's happening to my beautiful state
happen to my (still) beautiful country.
15
You must be very young as "this" took place in the whole nation starting in 1980. The upper tier states are the last bulwark of Union Labor and they are being dealt with now.
2
Another lie was the reason he attacked the unions, especially the teachers. He said that as county manager he had had trouble with unions. Teacher's unions in WI are not county wide. He would have had no dealings with them.
Dig up and read about his antics in college politics at Marquette. Couple that with the conversation with the reporter pretending to be a Koch brother where he practically groveled and you see what he really is. This guy is sleazy, sneaky, underhanded and a liar. The only thing he's good at is being a toady for the Kochs.
Again, that he is even being considered presidential material shows the depths to which our country has sunk. God help us.
Dig up and read about his antics in college politics at Marquette. Couple that with the conversation with the reporter pretending to be a Koch brother where he practically groveled and you see what he really is. This guy is sleazy, sneaky, underhanded and a liar. The only thing he's good at is being a toady for the Kochs.
Again, that he is even being considered presidential material shows the depths to which our country has sunk. God help us.
7
It's the right to work without overtime pay, set hours, benefits, holidays et cetera.
A lot of posters seem to believe that they will get to keep all the hard-won gains made by organized labor.
They will not. The GOP will move from chipping away at labor rights to using sledgehammers and dynamite on them.
The Koch brothers knew what they were buying when they bankrolled Walker.
A lot of posters seem to believe that they will get to keep all the hard-won gains made by organized labor.
They will not. The GOP will move from chipping away at labor rights to using sledgehammers and dynamite on them.
The Koch brothers knew what they were buying when they bankrolled Walker.
19
If you work anywhere there is a required Department of Labor poster on the wall somewhere. It explains the Federal and state labor laws. Try reading it so you can see how wrong you are.
4
Hey, people of Wisconsin. You are being taken for a ride by a man who cares only for himself. Watch the next few moves Wlaker takes. His credentials before the people.
12
Of course, the politicos and anti-union conservatives that are cheering on Gov. Walker are the same ones that are criticizing President Obama because the recovery has not sparked income growth. It's cause and effect: wages aren't rising 'cause employers can get away with it.
The US electorate has an appallingly short memory. What was the US labor movement (aka unions) all about?
The US electorate has an appallingly short memory. What was the US labor movement (aka unions) all about?
9
"Corporations are people, my friend.....and unionized people are not people, my friend"
Scott Walker 2016
Scott Walker 2016
161
Please, stop adopting the language of the anti-union movement. This has nothing to do with "right-to-work"; it is a handouts to corporations.
14
Let's face it. Unions are paying the price for having a history of corruption, racketeering, organized crime, wastefulness, doing a poor job in supporting workers versus themselves, and playing politics. They have reaped what they sowed.
7
Read some history.
7
I've read some history. And I've seen and listened to some too. I only wish I'd recorded my grandmother's stories - she worked for many years for the Teamsters - of meeting various and assorted organized crime bosses who came to visit her employer, an IBT Vice President who, while a nice guy, managed to always drive a swanky car, wear custom tailored suits, and live in a mansion in an elite suburb on his union salary until he was banned from the Union by a Federal judge.
2
What a terrible and misleading headline. Anyone with the minutest knowledge about Walker's stance on "right to work laws" would know that he has supported it forever during his tenure as governor. "Foes" in which this publications must be included are just using it to denigrate their opponent.
8
Ah yes the classic GOP convenient misunderstanding of plain fact. Walker has been running for POTUS since he ran for Student office in the college he dropped out of after losing the race.
6
From Politifact.org
Stating opposition
On May 11, 2012, Walker told reporters at the state Republican Party convention he had "no interest in pursuing right-to-work legislation in this state."
"It’s not going to get to my desk," he said. "I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure it isn’t there because my focal point (is) private sector unions have overwhelmingly come to the table to be my partner in economic development."
Walker would later renew that opposition with regard to 2015.
Restating opposition for 2015
On Sept. 2, 2014, Walker -- in the midst of his campaign against Democrat Mary Burke to win re-election -- said he was not advocating for right to work. And he said he did not expect the Legislature to send such legislation his way in the session that would start in January 2015.
"I think it's pretty clear the Legislature has worked with us hand in hand in the past and I'm making it clear in this campaign, as I'll make it clear in the next (legislative) session, that that's not something that's part of my agenda," Walker said.
"My point is I'm not pushing for it. I'm not supporting it in this session."
Walker declined to say whether he would veto the measure if it reached him.
But that would change.
Stating opposition
On May 11, 2012, Walker told reporters at the state Republican Party convention he had "no interest in pursuing right-to-work legislation in this state."
"It’s not going to get to my desk," he said. "I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure it isn’t there because my focal point (is) private sector unions have overwhelmingly come to the table to be my partner in economic development."
Walker would later renew that opposition with regard to 2015.
Restating opposition for 2015
On Sept. 2, 2014, Walker -- in the midst of his campaign against Democrat Mary Burke to win re-election -- said he was not advocating for right to work. And he said he did not expect the Legislature to send such legislation his way in the session that would start in January 2015.
"I think it's pretty clear the Legislature has worked with us hand in hand in the past and I'm making it clear in this campaign, as I'll make it clear in the next (legislative) session, that that's not something that's part of my agenda," Walker said.
"My point is I'm not pushing for it. I'm not supporting it in this session."
Walker declined to say whether he would veto the measure if it reached him.
But that would change.
6
Unions should take stock and look at the reasons they exist. Then they should without being overly emotional or strident educate the nation about what they do for it as a whole.
Don't get sucked into the emotionally manipulative false argument style of the enemy. The truth is the way.
There are legitimate and illegitimate ways to increase profitability.
Legitimate
1. Building a new factory to increase production and lowering prices to increase sales.
2. Lowering prices to sell more product.
3. Making production more efficient to increase production
Illegitimate – Or the way the GOP Always does it.
1. Raising the quotas of workers with no other changes in work conditions.
2. Laying off a large fraction of the workforce and increasing quotas on those left behind.
3. Lowering wages due to "lost" income, which is actually the money they could make if they could lower your wages.
4. Using false numbers based mainly in imaginary possibilities of "If only" to justify all of the above and more.
This practice has only ever harmed society at large and that harm is mainly hidden on the food stamp and welfare and other social government provided service roles and the crumbling of un-maintained infrastructure due to the lost tax base. Then they take that increase in government service roles and emergency funding for repairs which they created by "increasing profits" and use it as an excuse to say "big government" and so on.
Evil is alive and well living among us America.
Don't get sucked into the emotionally manipulative false argument style of the enemy. The truth is the way.
There are legitimate and illegitimate ways to increase profitability.
Legitimate
1. Building a new factory to increase production and lowering prices to increase sales.
2. Lowering prices to sell more product.
3. Making production more efficient to increase production
Illegitimate – Or the way the GOP Always does it.
1. Raising the quotas of workers with no other changes in work conditions.
2. Laying off a large fraction of the workforce and increasing quotas on those left behind.
3. Lowering wages due to "lost" income, which is actually the money they could make if they could lower your wages.
4. Using false numbers based mainly in imaginary possibilities of "If only" to justify all of the above and more.
This practice has only ever harmed society at large and that harm is mainly hidden on the food stamp and welfare and other social government provided service roles and the crumbling of un-maintained infrastructure due to the lost tax base. Then they take that increase in government service roles and emergency funding for repairs which they created by "increasing profits" and use it as an excuse to say "big government" and so on.
Evil is alive and well living among us America.
6
I think this will be a seen in a new episode of "House of Cards."
tsawbob, send payment to.... :) Thanks that is funny.
boy, when I started reading this note, I thought you were in favor of the law. I was confused. I thought your point would be that unions actually help companies do those "legitimated" things. But when has any union actually worked to improve a company's ability to produce, to compete? I'd be really interested in hearing abut this.
Face it unions are obsolete parasitic relics of the last century. While business and corporations have evolved unions have not and are going the way of the dinosaur.
12
Like the middle class.
5
Evolved into what? We're just a step away from sweatshops.
1
Check out American history, blood shed for the right to living wage, humane work hours, days off, then tell me about how, "right to work," laws work out for employees. To this day neither I nor my family, including grandparents, will cross a picket line in support of working people, literally one of the more important foundations of a quality country. Sounds good now maybe to those who listen to Walker's fairy tales, spoken to naïve ears of those who didn't experience and don't remember. Give it time, then learn from painful experience that this is a travesty waiting to peak. " Owe my soul to the company store, " never, I hope, for me and my family.
28
Why are supposedly "neutral" media (not to mention supposedly "left leaning" media) using language calling this a "right to work" law?
This is language that Republicans have admitted to testing via focus groups in order to make it sound not as what it is -- a law requiring that union membership and dues be optional -- but rather making it sound far friendlier. Giving people a "right to work" sounds as American as apple pie. Frank Luntz is not a shy person and has publicly taken credit for this term as a Republican victory. Certainly the Times is aware of this.
I don't even lean one way or another on this issue. I can see valid arguments being made on both sides and I see areas of American society where unions have done much good, as well as areas where unions have done tremendous damage.
But I would respond angrily to any news service that might call themselves objective, but then use a term like "right to work" that no rational person could oppose. Perhaps this is an issue for the Public Editor? It seems once news organizations use "right to work," the unions have already lost their battle.
This is language that Republicans have admitted to testing via focus groups in order to make it sound not as what it is -- a law requiring that union membership and dues be optional -- but rather making it sound far friendlier. Giving people a "right to work" sounds as American as apple pie. Frank Luntz is not a shy person and has publicly taken credit for this term as a Republican victory. Certainly the Times is aware of this.
I don't even lean one way or another on this issue. I can see valid arguments being made on both sides and I see areas of American society where unions have done much good, as well as areas where unions have done tremendous damage.
But I would respond angrily to any news service that might call themselves objective, but then use a term like "right to work" that no rational person could oppose. Perhaps this is an issue for the Public Editor? It seems once news organizations use "right to work," the unions have already lost their battle.
13
So instead of "Right To Work" should the newspapers use the term "Forced Union Pay Deduction State?
1
Workers' rights are civil rights! Shame on Walker...
“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” —Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961
“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” —Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961
30
Don't read too much into this. Away from Madison and the influence of Chicago, Wisconsin is very much a conservative western state. Wausau, where I worked for several months tends to be one-company towns heavily involved in dairy and the food industry. The owners of these companies tend to be ultra-conservative and take an instant dislike to liberals and liberal ideas, let alone unions. They're just a bunch of good ol' farmer's sons who lucked into a good thing. Wisconsin is far from being a mid-west rust-belt state. You have to travel south to Milwaukee for that.
6
And of course, hard work combined with federal dairy price supports have made the industry viable, year after year. So the same sons of farmers who hate welfare recipients in Milwaukee and Madison would go absolutely cheese curd crazy if they didn't get their government price support check when milk prices are down.
7
As someone who has lived in Wisconsin his entire life, mostly in small towns nowhere near Madison, I would have to STRONGLY disagree with you. Things were never this toxic in Wisconsin, and I remember there being more of a balance of views. I've always thought of Wisconsin as a moderate state.
2
I completely agree with Matt. I've lived in western Wisconsin for 25+ years. The views are moderate and balanced. Well, until Walker came around. He's managed to convince working class people that he has their best interest, he's made teachers and education into demons, and people now with divergent views hate one another. That was never the case before. A comment above asked if Walker had looked at historical data. Hah! The man is against education, totally. He wouldn't consult historical anything.
3
OK. With the help of Google, I will answer my own question. Union membership in Ohio was 12.4% in 2014, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (down from 12.6% in 2013). How then to account for the union success in defeating a measure to limit collective bargaining rights in Ohio? Superior labor organizing? Better quality union leadership? Or, conversely, perhaps weaker GOP leadership, support and organizing?
3
Most people in favor of this law seem to conveniently overlook an important point: If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership.
Meaning non-members, by law, are freeloading off the members. I thought the right hated freeloaders? Shouldn't these laws be written so that non-members lose the benefits fought for and gained by unions?
Meaning non-members, by law, are freeloading off the members. I thought the right hated freeloaders? Shouldn't these laws be written so that non-members lose the benefits fought for and gained by unions?
302
You don't even have to be a member! Just pay a trivial amount of "representation fee." As a retired person, working as an adjunct at the local community college, I'm not really interested in getting into the school's and union's politics. But I don't deny the benefits of the faculty union.
2
To answer your question at the end, If the new hires chose to be nonmembers the employer would simply replace all Union workers with new hires that selected not to be members to avoid paying the benefits altogether. The unions could be gotten rid of by attrition. Classic divide and conquer.
4
Absolutely, but the freeloading mandate is federal law under the National Labor Relations Act. Wisconsin cannot overturn it. All they can do is come as close as possible, giving workers the greatest possible choice.
1
"Right to work" is more the use/co-opting of the rightwing machine to put a spin on their anti everyone-but-business philosophy. Of course "right to work" sounds far pithier and better than "break the backs and the political muscle of union workers so they won't have any bargaining power bc we do the bidding of our big business puppet masters" laws.
The American voter should be forewarned that Gov. Walker is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Only in America can a man who seems to have earned most of his livelihood courtesy of the taxpayers (nearly entire public sector career), succeed so brilliantly at demonizing the very government (and by default the taxpayers) who fund his and his family's existence.
The American voter should be forewarned that Gov. Walker is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Only in America can a man who seems to have earned most of his livelihood courtesy of the taxpayers (nearly entire public sector career), succeed so brilliantly at demonizing the very government (and by default the taxpayers) who fund his and his family's existence.
18
Once again conservatives have succeeded in adding a phrase to the national vocabulary that makes its purposes look appealing, but is actually destructive to most Americans. Think "right to life." Now we have "right to work." In the headline and in the first paragraph we see "right to work" in quotation marks, but later on it appears without them. And we see and hear this phrase every else these days.
There is nothing "right to work" about this bill. Like those in several dozen other Republican-controlled states, it is purely and simply anti-union. Furthermore it is anti-labor and anti-middle-class. It aims to weaken unions and thereby increase the power of management over labor. It will result in lower incomes, lower work standards and lower benefits for everyone in blue collar and service industry jobs, whether they are union members or not. A large majority of Wisconsinites will be hurt by this legislation. Why many of these same people who will be hurt vote Republicans into office is a mystery to me.
There is nothing "right to work" about this bill. Like those in several dozen other Republican-controlled states, it is purely and simply anti-union. Furthermore it is anti-labor and anti-middle-class. It aims to weaken unions and thereby increase the power of management over labor. It will result in lower incomes, lower work standards and lower benefits for everyone in blue collar and service industry jobs, whether they are union members or not. A large majority of Wisconsinites will be hurt by this legislation. Why many of these same people who will be hurt vote Republicans into office is a mystery to me.
45
We can expect that those who don't pay union dues will will spend the time, effort, and money negotiating their own contracts, then, correct?
After all, the Walker crowd wouldn't want a free ride on the backs of dues payers, would they?
After all, the Walker crowd wouldn't want a free ride on the backs of dues payers, would they?
26
I like that fact that in America I have the right not to be forced to join a union, or pay union dues.
Walker
2016
Walker
2016
10
It would be great to see a President Walker bring these reforms to the bloated bureaucracy in Washington!
Completely agree...Walker 2016
Completely agree...Walker 2016
3
An American Taxpayer - Which rights and benefits has Walker given up? If God forbid he gets to D.C. he'll hand out goodies to his corporate masters and you the American Taxpayer will end up footing the bill for those goodies.
3
And those who choose to forgo union dues shouldn't have the benefits the unions bargain for: higher wages, better healthcare, overtime pay, weekends off. safe work conditions.
It's only fair.
It's only fair.
I remember being a confused 16 year old who was told that part of my paycheck would go towards union dues (I was just a bagger at a grocery store in WI)( wait, what? That's college money!) I don't recall being further informed of meetings or being told how it would benefit me, but really at 16 I probably would not have even considered it further. I just had to fork over my dues. I wish I would have had the option to opt out. As a seasonal part time employee it really made no sense...still doesn't.
8
Unless, of course, your hourly wage would have been less without the efforts of the union in the first place. It's possible. too, that even with the dues levied, you were still making more than you might have in a similar non-union job.
10
The way that it benefited you, was you would have earned much higher wages than you would have otherwise and you would have decent working hours and conditions. If your boss tried to fire you without cause, the union would back you up.
A lot of people who have those kinds of jobs, do so for the entire working career. A union makes their lives better.
A lot of people who have those kinds of jobs, do so for the entire working career. A union makes their lives better.
7
And you made how much as a union-represented bagger? And what was the minimum wage? When I was at the same age, that's what baggers made. And checkers not much more.
3
Our country is regressing into a time of suppression and exploitation, all at the expense of the working man. We think we have progressed. No, on the contrary. We have watched the Supreme Court weaken voting rights. Now state by state we are seeing Republican leadership weaken necessary protection of our much needed work-force. We don't need more CEO's or rich, self-serving politicians along with those lobbyists whom have them in their back pockets. We need plumbers, teamsters, electricians. We need those who maintain our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure. They in turn need their rights for a decent wage, health care, safe working conditions.
We also need to respect and actually help our teachers and health care professionals, from nurses to technicians to hospital aides. We need our unions that represent all of the above and more. I am glad my father is not here to see how worker's rights are being little by little taken away. This man was a truck-driver, who worked hard; but it was his union who stood behind him so he can send his children to college and have a roof over his family's head.
We also need to respect and actually help our teachers and health care professionals, from nurses to technicians to hospital aides. We need our unions that represent all of the above and more. I am glad my father is not here to see how worker's rights are being little by little taken away. This man was a truck-driver, who worked hard; but it was his union who stood behind him so he can send his children to college and have a roof over his family's head.
81
I believe you have the facts turned upside down. How can any true American believe that forcing workers to pay a membership fee to an organization that they do not want to join is anything but coercion and abuse of individual rights. The justification comes down from the pillar of liberal thinking: the ends always justify any means, where only the liberals have all the right ends in mind. This is the real danger that the nation faces.
This coercion aside, workers and voter's right have never been as strong as they are today. There has been no deterioration. What has deteriorated is support for the fundamentals upon which this country was founded: the appreciation for hard work, personal accountability, and the opiate of the entitlement state.
This coercion aside, workers and voter's right have never been as strong as they are today. There has been no deterioration. What has deteriorated is support for the fundamentals upon which this country was founded: the appreciation for hard work, personal accountability, and the opiate of the entitlement state.
3
Judge, all workers enjoy the benefits of unions. From the past-child labor laws, safer working conditions, overtime pay, etc.etc.,etc.
Today all workers enjoy the benefits negotiated by unions, e.g. wages are lower in "right-to-work states. Why shouldn't they pay their fair share?
Today all workers enjoy the benefits negotiated by unions, e.g. wages are lower in "right-to-work states. Why shouldn't they pay their fair share?
4
"How can any true American believe that forcing workers to pay a membership fee to an organization that they do not want to join is anything but coercion and abuse of individual rights."
They are seeking a job that pays well because of that Union and will have the protection of that Union too. That cost the Union money to accomplish and to protect.
How is it you think it fair not to pay for the service? Or do you support the idea of something for nothing only when it hurts a union?
They are seeking a job that pays well because of that Union and will have the protection of that Union too. That cost the Union money to accomplish and to protect.
How is it you think it fair not to pay for the service? Or do you support the idea of something for nothing only when it hurts a union?
1
Since Ohio rejected a measure limiting collective bargaining rights, I have to wonder: what is the percentage of union membership there? Is it higher than in Michigan, which of course passed 'right-to-work' legislation?
Well done! This puts workers first in allowing discretion as to what is best for their families. Great to see a bit of sanity in government policy.
8
It also ensures that individuals have almost no strength at the bargaining table.
10
C, that is false. We have sound worker rights laws that eliminate the prior need for labor organization. And every person has an opportunity to bargain if they believe their work is being undervalued.
Paul, who fights for the continuation of those "sound worker rights laws?" Is it the Scott Walkers of the world? Or is it the unions and people who support unions?
It seems simple to me, those who don't pay union dues don't get any of the benefits from union negotiations. They have to negotiate singly with no power of numbers.
24
And if they are a strong performer, they might just outpace their union counterparts, where the good get lumped in with the bad.
5
Then the employer would simply hire all new nonunion folks and lay off the union workers.
The Beauty of Unions, which is being exploited here, is that they protect all workers union or not. It is an Altruistic endeavor not an avarice based one.
The reason why people think Union wages are so extravagant and therefore Unions are avarice based is because the average wage is that much out of line with the value of their work. You cannot use the few examples of people exploiting Unions unfairly for personal profit as a measure of all unions and union people. the same kinds of folks that join the GOP when they are better off will also join a Union and be DEM to improve themselves. Not all GOPers start out as the children of wealth & privilege.
The value of work is based on many economic factors, the amount of profit the employer makes from it being a large part of that. I think there used to be an algorithm or model to calculate the value of work to set wages used by each union.
The Beauty of Unions, which is being exploited here, is that they protect all workers union or not. It is an Altruistic endeavor not an avarice based one.
The reason why people think Union wages are so extravagant and therefore Unions are avarice based is because the average wage is that much out of line with the value of their work. You cannot use the few examples of people exploiting Unions unfairly for personal profit as a measure of all unions and union people. the same kinds of folks that join the GOP when they are better off will also join a Union and be DEM to improve themselves. Not all GOPers start out as the children of wealth & privilege.
The value of work is based on many economic factors, the amount of profit the employer makes from it being a large part of that. I think there used to be an algorithm or model to calculate the value of work to set wages used by each union.
1
JLS, and then again, with no bargaining power, they might get less.
1
Scott Walker, like other Republicans, makes his bona fides by ruining the lives of as many vulnerable people as possible. It's what the good people at the Iowa caucuses look for.
62
Iowa -- A state full of giant agribusinesses that hire people to work at dangerous jobs with minimal safety standards for minimal (if not minimum) wages. Oh, and many of those are farm kids who are exempt from child worker laws.
Kind of sounds like: China. Right where America is headed.
Kind of sounds like: China. Right where America is headed.
3
This law should be called the" The destruction of the middle class law".
61
The definition of conservatives can be boiled down to one word...selfishness. Any worker who reaps the benefits of a union and refuses to pay dues is selfish and thus fits the mold of a true conservative.
14
The "Right to work" laws are about enfeebling unions, who are essentially toothless without paid legal representation. And at the same time Governor Walker takes aim at workers' protections, he will spew platitudes about the American middle class, not to mention inapt comparisons to ISIS!
11
In Scott Walker's world, controlled by he Koch Brothers, "Right to Work" means "Right to Exploit". Walker's blatant attacks on workers' rights clearly demonstrate that today's Republican Party is nothing but a puppet of the worst of the corporatocracy. Soon modern day writers will be publishing the 21st century equivalent of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle to describe working conditions in the US. American workers face a bleak future if the likes of Walker continue to gain power.
30
As long as the right to unionize is not abridged there is no problem. Now the employee has the RIGHT to decide whether to join the union, pay dues, etc. Needless to say, if the employer is fair he should have no fear of unions now. If not, they have the right to band together. But employees are NOT forced to join unions and pay dues - as my dad was for decades in a teacher's union that supported things he abhorred - and he had NO CHOICE but to contribute to it!
7
To what abhorrent things gained by unions did he object?
The 8-hour work day?
The creation and nurturing of a solid middle class?
Perhaps he found folly in protecting workers from serious injury and death?
Why is that people can believe that union organizations are universally malevolent, but businesses are purely benevolent?
The 8-hour work day?
The creation and nurturing of a solid middle class?
Perhaps he found folly in protecting workers from serious injury and death?
Why is that people can believe that union organizations are universally malevolent, but businesses are purely benevolent?
15
No, the support of politicians with whom he did not agree - i.e. ALL Democrats, the support of legislation with which he did NOT agree, all against his core beliefs. Everyone should have the RIGHT not to have YOUR money TAKEN to support those with whom you do not agree.
And as I clearly stated, as long as the right TO unionize is not abridged I have no issue. And I do not think all union organizations are universally malevolent, but if they force their members to contribute to things for which they do not agree, then they are malevolent.
And as I clearly stated, as long as the right TO unionize is not abridged I have no issue. And I do not think all union organizations are universally malevolent, but if they force their members to contribute to things for which they do not agree, then they are malevolent.
Maybe he was like me? I am a Republican and have been since I was 16 years old. I detest the agenda of the party and resented every cent of my money going to them from my forced pay checkage for the union.
As these efforts continue unabated in GOP dominated states one begins to wonder what the end game looks like. At some point the GOP will have destroyed or outsourced so many jobs based on the supply side lie that the low information voters will run out of people and groups worse off that they are; groups that the GOP and right wing hate radio have trained them to blame. When they have no one left to blame but themselves they may turn on their GOP overlords. Frankly I think that the GOP drive to repeal the 20th century will inevitable result in the kind of domestic unrest that was widespread in the early 20th century with riots, general strikes and major civil disobedience. It may be the only way out as it was the only way out 100 years ago.
18
We're ready and waiting.
1
Labor union crushing, race to the bottom for wages and the weakening of labor rights is at the heart of the republican party. The supporters are from the I want something for nothing segment of our society. No new taxes! But I want good roads, I want good schools, etc. Here I want the benefits of good wages and working conditions but I do not want to pay someone to get them for me.
47
I am not sure I understand this issue. The law might not allow this, but it would seem to me that if you don't pay union dues then you are not in the union and you don't get the protection of the union. You don't get the wage the union negotiated, you don't get the workplace protection (or at least the people who are advocating for YOU int the workplace), etc. Why are all workers treated the same?
As a company owner, I would LOVE to require a 10 hour day from my people and have them work 40 hours per week in 4 days. However, the union does not allow this without paying overtime past 8 hours in a day. If we had "right to work" here is MA, and I had 25% or 30% of my workers "opting out" then you can bet I would change their shifts around, move them to 10 hours per day (still 40 hours per week) and not pay them overtime. I would be happy to have two sets of rules.
Why would the union care? Why should they?
If they union can show VALUE to their workers then these workers will join and pay the dues. If they can't then the union should go away. This whole idea of negotiating for everyone is now a thing of the past.
Just my 2 cents.
As a company owner, I would LOVE to require a 10 hour day from my people and have them work 40 hours per week in 4 days. However, the union does not allow this without paying overtime past 8 hours in a day. If we had "right to work" here is MA, and I had 25% or 30% of my workers "opting out" then you can bet I would change their shifts around, move them to 10 hours per day (still 40 hours per week) and not pay them overtime. I would be happy to have two sets of rules.
Why would the union care? Why should they?
If they union can show VALUE to their workers then these workers will join and pay the dues. If they can't then the union should go away. This whole idea of negotiating for everyone is now a thing of the past.
Just my 2 cents.
The problem with your argument is that workers fear losing their jobs if they don't comply with employers' demands. You have power over them -- power that the unions have fought to temper, so it doesn't become abuse.
5
Sean: I think we can sum up your take on this as a company owner, if I can exploit my non-union employees, all good for me, but not for my employees, but that is what the GOP advocate, right?
EW
EW
1
"If they union can show VALUE to their workers then these workers will join and pay the dues. "
But under R-t-W laws, workers can get the value and NOT pay the dues.
But under R-t-W laws, workers can get the value and NOT pay the dues.
3
What a huge mistake.
Idaho went over in 1996 or there about.
Downhill ride ever since.
Lowest wages, education, roads, you name it.
Always in competition with Mississippi for lowest everything.
Say what you will about America, but once it commits to a bad
mistake it continues to double down on said mistake for decades.
False pride? Stubbornness? Whatever the reason it has rendered us in
some sort of permanent 'fail status'.
Idaho went over in 1996 or there about.
Downhill ride ever since.
Lowest wages, education, roads, you name it.
Always in competition with Mississippi for lowest everything.
Say what you will about America, but once it commits to a bad
mistake it continues to double down on said mistake for decades.
False pride? Stubbornness? Whatever the reason it has rendered us in
some sort of permanent 'fail status'.
45
The "right to organize" is the only thing standing between profit hungry corporations and the destruction of the middle class in America.
112
Too late. The middle class is about gone now.
Don't want to pay union dues? OK with me - but then you are not entitled to the pay raise (if any) or benefits negotiated by that union. A two tiered pay system in today's computerized world should be easy enough to do. It's already done in some companies to differentiate between new hires and old employees. The union would be able to share with the company's payroll department who is a dues paying member and who is not. And the company would be able to pay some employees less and give them fewer benefits. A win-win.
23
Can you guarantee that a non-union employee who decides to join the union will be paid the union rate -- or not fired for some other reason? Most non-union companies have "at will" provisions that employees must agree to. It would be pretty easy for an employer, under your scheme, to eventually only have non-union workers.
I used to work for a very large company that had multiple unions for employees in various areas as well as non-unionized employees in other areas. I was in a department of lawyers, architects, and clerical workers. We had no union. However, when one of the powerful unions gained some benefit that was not directly related to pay or to the specifics of their jobs--such as number of paid holidays off, for example--the benefit was extended to everyone in the company. There would be nothing to stop management from choosing to extend a benefit or pay-rate to non-union employees in a tactical move to lessen union support. That is, if people could justify the idea to themselves that they didn't need to pay union dues (or fees) in order to get what was desirable, they would feel less and less loyal to the union and ultimately decide that they just wouldn't bothering paying dues. Eventually the union might find itself with too little support either financially or philosophically and would pretty much wither away.
It is pretty amazing how obtuse some people can be but that is life.
There are a few sayings worth noting again:
You get what you pay for
There is no free lunch
You reap what you sow
you get the government you vote for
and more appropriately
There's a sucker born every minute.
People continue to fall for anti-union rhetoric and soon enough they will be earning what the lowest wage people of the world get---1 dollar a day.
There are a few sayings worth noting again:
You get what you pay for
There is no free lunch
You reap what you sow
you get the government you vote for
and more appropriately
There's a sucker born every minute.
People continue to fall for anti-union rhetoric and soon enough they will be earning what the lowest wage people of the world get---1 dollar a day.
101
It is also pretty amazing how certain people can overreact. First of all, there are minimum wage laws, so your analogy to the lowest wage people in the world is a bit ridiculous.
As the article clearly points out, less than 20% of the country's workforce is non-union and most are doing just fine. A key difference is that non-union employers have the ability to differentiate pay based on performance, paying stronger performers a higher wage and lower performers less. This encourages initiative and creativeness and the drive to succeed, while discouraging an environment of "everyone gets the same, so why bother" mediocracy.
As the article clearly points out, less than 20% of the country's workforce is non-union and most are doing just fine. A key difference is that non-union employers have the ability to differentiate pay based on performance, paying stronger performers a higher wage and lower performers less. This encourages initiative and creativeness and the drive to succeed, while discouraging an environment of "everyone gets the same, so why bother" mediocracy.
44
JLS- Who fights for minimum wage laws? Do you notice it is not the Scott Walkers of the world?
11
JLS, they have the "ability" to do so but never do unless forced to. Thus Unions.
Example; Henry ford could have paid a lot more than he was and it was only after him killing many men and destroying thousands of lives that enough workers organised to force him to see reason. He gave in not because he was a good person, he wasn't, or saw reason, he didn't, he gave in because he realised by an enlightened self interest argument that if he paid the workers enough to live well he could make more cars and sell them to those workers whom I do not think it possible for him to have thought less of.
There are still and always will be men like Ford and they are men like Walker and those who support him.
Example; Henry ford could have paid a lot more than he was and it was only after him killing many men and destroying thousands of lives that enough workers organised to force him to see reason. He gave in not because he was a good person, he wasn't, or saw reason, he didn't, he gave in because he realised by an enlightened self interest argument that if he paid the workers enough to live well he could make more cars and sell them to those workers whom I do not think it possible for him to have thought less of.
There are still and always will be men like Ford and they are men like Walker and those who support him.
7
"Right to work" laws? They have nothing to do with the right to work. They are all about the "right" to work for a subsistence wage, and the "right" to accept whatever working conditions the company demands.
195
The guy is turning Wisconsin into a Midwest version of Alabama.
35
If the GOP wins in 2016 we will all be able to say I am Alabama.
Walker's primary motive is a better jobs environment for his state. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2003-2013, the states with right to work laws have had more than double the job growth rate of non right to work states. Compulsory union membership is very thankfully becoming a dying relic in this country.
1
They may have double the job growth but are still have crushing poverty compared to non right to work states.
1
From the WSJ (!):
"And indeed, private-sector employees in right-to-work states earned an average of $738.43 a week in the past 12 months, 9.8% less than workers in states without such laws, according to an analysis of Labor Department data"
"And indeed, private-sector employees in right-to-work states earned an average of $738.43 a week in the past 12 months, 9.8% less than workers in states without such laws, according to an analysis of Labor Department data"
I don't believe the general public understands let alone appreciates the role unions have played in improving the lives of the working classes since the industrial revolution.
And what is with the dichotomy where Police and Fire unions are always exempted from right wing attacks on collective bargaining?
To my mind there is nothing more American than having a voice in ones own affairs including work conditions and labor relations with employers. It seems we have completely lost our way, and minds these days.
Is the press partly responsible for the publics ignorance?
And what is with the dichotomy where Police and Fire unions are always exempted from right wing attacks on collective bargaining?
To my mind there is nothing more American than having a voice in ones own affairs including work conditions and labor relations with employers. It seems we have completely lost our way, and minds these days.
Is the press partly responsible for the publics ignorance?
21
Its a vast, right wing conspiracy, don't you know. Unions outlived their usefulness about 50 years ago. Maybe the ignorance you see in the public is really your outdated view.
1
Police and firemen usually back republicans so they pose no threat to the republicans in office It is also handy to drive a wedge between unions so police/fire. good, teachers/ government workers. bad worldview. The people of Wisconsin will see very soon what right-to-work (for less) will get them in the workplace. Bupkis.
Bravo Gov. Walker. Indentured servitude to unions that do little except back candidates for office and increase costs for everyone will now end in Wisconsin!
5
The most insane, Orwellian thing is those who cal it "worker's rights" when what they are talking about is the "right" to be forced to join a union and pay dues to an organization to which you have no allegiance.
6
having been self employed my entire adult life i have no dog in this fight. here in minnesota we don't have these issues. if as the right to work people say this is good for business, i say check out minnesota's business climate. we're kicking butt compared to these other states mentioned in the article.
go ahead and fall in line with the deep south. we won't miss you.
go ahead and fall in line with the deep south. we won't miss you.
32
It is laws like this which allow deadbeats to enjoy union benefits without paying for them which have contributed to the success of the war on unions which, in turn, have contributed to the destruction of the middle class.
23
We can all give thanks to ALEC for this. Koch brothers funded enterprise that is enacting its state-by-state deception strategy via the GOP "leadership."
Blatant, overt, yet unstoppable where ignorance is bliss, guns rule and voting suppressed. The USA of 2015.....small states showcasing their collective ability to dismantle the great fabrics of this country.
Blatant, overt, yet unstoppable where ignorance is bliss, guns rule and voting suppressed. The USA of 2015.....small states showcasing their collective ability to dismantle the great fabrics of this country.
119
He's all family values, while he feeds at the corporate cash trough. The main thing he'll do for families below the wealthy level is take their money from them and give it to his paymasters.
14
This is simply another case of "elections have consequences." If you elect Republican politicians, they will support Republican policies such as "right-to-work." Complaining about this does not accomplish anything. Electing politicians who are against "right-to-work" will. Its the only solution. And if the majority of voters support "right-to-work," then you have to learn to live with it, that's the way democracies work. Let me be clear, I do not support "right-to-work," but yes, it is a political issue, and the only way to win in politics is to get the majority of voters to support your position.
25
Wisconsin was once the national standard in progressive reform--residents should feel ashamed of themselves.
137
Yep, Wisconsin has a rather checkered history though.It is the birthplace of the Republican Party-- back in the days when the party stood for something noble. Wisconsin elected LaFollette, who was voted the best Senator of the 1940s, but also elected Joe McCarthy, the worst Senator of the 1950s. Wisconsin elected Gaylord Nelson, a great progressive & environmentalist, only to replace him with Bob Kasten, a tool of the big banks. Then Wisconsin elected Russ Feingold, but threw him out in favor of a mad hatter from the Tea Party.
Thanks for the insight.
We are. But divisiveness, envy, and misinformation have been the staples of talk radio, so the mostly working-class and middle-income men who listen to it vote against their best interests.
I am no longer proud to live in my state.
I am no longer proud to live in my state.
1
I love the multiple quotes such as, "This is all about breaking up the Union." Well, no kidding. Sometimes bitter medicine needs to be served to those too 'sick' to understand we all benefit when unions are weakened. If you want proof of that look at the highest wages/salaries in the US and you will see a huge color green for 50 miles around Washington D.C.
Think about it. There are government workers in D.C. earning twice your salary. I'd like to hear 'your' (as in taxpayer supporter and funded) union defend $50-$60,000 plus generous benefits forever. That's not why we need a union it is the reason why unions are killing us citizens.
Think about it. There are government workers in D.C. earning twice your salary. I'd like to hear 'your' (as in taxpayer supporter and funded) union defend $50-$60,000 plus generous benefits forever. That's not why we need a union it is the reason why unions are killing us citizens.
5
There aren't enough unions for them to be "killing us citizens."
As for "we all benefit when unions are weakened," unions fought for and won countless benefits people now take for granted, including the end to child labor and employer abuse. Do you think those things were extended from pure altruism on the part of corporations?
How utterly sad to watch people like you defend the crowd that wants to own you lock, stock, and barrel. Must be the koolaid.
Unions aren't the problem. Stagnant wages are. Wake up, learn to value your labor, and acknowledge your real enemies.
As for "we all benefit when unions are weakened," unions fought for and won countless benefits people now take for granted, including the end to child labor and employer abuse. Do you think those things were extended from pure altruism on the part of corporations?
How utterly sad to watch people like you defend the crowd that wants to own you lock, stock, and barrel. Must be the koolaid.
Unions aren't the problem. Stagnant wages are. Wake up, learn to value your labor, and acknowledge your real enemies.
26
Think about it, there are people in NY earning 40,000 times your salary.
4
If I was a right wing commentator, I'd accuse you of being envious of these government employees. But YOU think about it: They have used their collective bargaining power to keep their heads above water as middle class workers in the private sector have watched their standard of living steadily decline over the past 2-3 decades. The solution is not to bring the middle class down, it's to keep its position in the economy strong. Maybe you should think out organizing a union in your workplace.
1
You should not be forced to pay people to get or keep a job.
That's about as twisted a notion as you can get.
That's about as twisted a notion as you can get.
5
But nor should you force other people to bear the financial burden for the benefits that YOU share with them when you are entirely financially capable of contributing to the costs but don't want to. You want the goodies, just not the cost of obtaining them.
5
Unions are not forced to do anything......
1
To Republicans, corporations are people but unions are not. Time to boycott Wisconsin and organize against these evil "leaders".
11
"Workers" aren't people, either. They are "headcount:" a cost center.
So glad the Republicans really have a grip on what American workers want now--nice, dirt-bottom wages. Do these guys read the news in the past several years. Jobs are increasing, but higher-wage jobs and higher wages are the big need. The GOP is paddling like crazy in the wrong direction for everyone but the CEO's like Rauner.
28
Amazing how blind the work force is. Again, drunk with a vaguely cultural issue - unions as bad, "lefty" organizations are forcing them to actually stick up for basic rights in the workplace- the workers vote time and again against their own self-interest. I have worked in both union shops and "right-to-work" states. Here's the difference: in the latter, my right to work was for less money and in compromised safety conditions. Every time. No exceptions. Go ahead. Force me to pay someone a small amount to look out for my interests. I welcome it.
372
You're part of the minority view that thinks that paying a Union as an indentured servant is a good thing; however, In Walker's Wisconsin you can still pay the Union if you really really want too. Good luck with that.
stop kidding yourself. the work force is blind? the ones who voted against unions were mostly those that are doing fine without the need for a union. they're not blind, they made a rational decision and voted accordingly. I am sure they gave careful thought about the implications this may have had on their families and livelihood- and were not just following a political agenda or influence.
That is your right accept and its my right to refuse the situation. Long live personal freedom and rugged individualism. Congratulations to those with the courage to abandon the herd and risk success or failure on their own efforts. Unions are a fine place for those that see themselves as oppressed victims.
This is not freedom-to-work legislation. It's a way to convince workers that they don't need protection from employers which is not true. The reasons employers have been able to underpay so many of us, fire us at will, i.e. for no reason, is because we have no protection. Management does not want to work with employees to create a safe efficient workplace. Management wants to blame employees for management's inability or disinterest in having a safe and efficient workplace where there is cooperation on both sides.
Properly run, unions do protect employees and can help management if management listens. I've been in too many places where supervisors who are one step removed from the work have no idea of the workflow. They don't listen and then they blame the employees for management's bad decisions. Most employees recognize the futility of complaining about any problems to management. They handle it by leaving the job if they can. The problem continues with new players. Having regular union and management meetings could break that cycle and keep both sides honest.
The truth is, in America, workers are viewed as widgets with no rights and no life. We give up our rights the moment we walk into work. For a progressive country we have a very adversarial and antiquated view of employees. We don't invest in them, give them enough time off, or treat them like human beings unless they are very high up in the company. RTW is one more example of this.
Properly run, unions do protect employees and can help management if management listens. I've been in too many places where supervisors who are one step removed from the work have no idea of the workflow. They don't listen and then they blame the employees for management's bad decisions. Most employees recognize the futility of complaining about any problems to management. They handle it by leaving the job if they can. The problem continues with new players. Having regular union and management meetings could break that cycle and keep both sides honest.
The truth is, in America, workers are viewed as widgets with no rights and no life. We give up our rights the moment we walk into work. For a progressive country we have a very adversarial and antiquated view of employees. We don't invest in them, give them enough time off, or treat them like human beings unless they are very high up in the company. RTW is one more example of this.
92
I think the full term is "Right to Work for Less Money."
435
Also, "Right to work until management finds some reason to fire you and replace you with someone cheaper, to make sure you have no recourse."
13
Or perhaps, "Right to Work and Be Exploited."
2
Why would union members agree to work for less in their next contract??
Good for you, Scott. Now if you want to really show your conservative credentials you'll out-source most of the state machinery overseas. I'm sure the guys at Apple and BofA and Oracle can give you some tips on that one.
67
The union movement was born at a time when workers were being cruelly exploited by unscrupulous industrialists during the industrial revolution. A healthy middle class eventually emerged as a positive force for democracy and fairness. In america this all began to unravel with Reagan´s supression of the air traffic controllers strike. And alas, the GOP has been hellbent on destroying unions ever since.
With the gradual weakening of union clout, it´s no surprise that median household incomes have barely budged for 30 years while in stark contrast income growth for the top privileged 10% has grown by 75% since 1980 and counting. In 1980 the average CEO made 25 times what an average worker made; now it´s 400 times. And tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (disproportionately benefitting the wealthy) are at unprecedented lows as public debt takes up the slack.
Frankly union busting is not good for the country, and the naivety of Wisconsin voters to get conned by the GOP canard that somehow unions are evil is akin to biting off their noses to spite their faces.
With the gradual weakening of union clout, it´s no surprise that median household incomes have barely budged for 30 years while in stark contrast income growth for the top privileged 10% has grown by 75% since 1980 and counting. In 1980 the average CEO made 25 times what an average worker made; now it´s 400 times. And tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (disproportionately benefitting the wealthy) are at unprecedented lows as public debt takes up the slack.
Frankly union busting is not good for the country, and the naivety of Wisconsin voters to get conned by the GOP canard that somehow unions are evil is akin to biting off their noses to spite their faces.
510
Its giving the members the OPTION to not have to join the union- period- if they believe the need for a union they can join- if not they do not have to FORCED to do so.
4
The wonders of a poor education and inability to think created by belief in magic.
13
Nikos- do you realize that those who do not join, by law, still get all the benefits of the union? The higher wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance, representation from adverse employer actions, etc.
This is merely a union busting law, pure and simple. If you think Republicans are doing this for the working man...
This is merely a union busting law, pure and simple. If you think Republicans are doing this for the working man...
19
Why on earth should somebody be required to be part of the union against their will. That the President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is leading the fight against this bill shows you exactly what is wrong with the labor movement. These are public sector employees with Pensions, Benefits and Work Rules that are way above the average american worker and should not be allowed to unionize. Another group that should be prohibited from Unionization are School Teachers.
11
Why on earth should I have to pay taxes against my will? I don't like war. I don't like supporting my elected officials even if they need money. I'm not in school any more. I don't want to pay for your children and I don't have any children. So there!
Here's why: I live in this country and I use its services. If you are working in a union shop and are at that level, you are getting the rights and privileges that the union employees are getting. You should be paying for it. However, if you feel that you should not pay for anything you don't approve of or use feel free to move to another country where they don't have unions, a government, or a justice system. Then report back to us.
Here's why: I live in this country and I use its services. If you are working in a union shop and are at that level, you are getting the rights and privileges that the union employees are getting. You should be paying for it. However, if you feel that you should not pay for anything you don't approve of or use feel free to move to another country where they don't have unions, a government, or a justice system. Then report back to us.
26
Nobody should be allowed to unionize. The right to assembly should be removed from the constitution. Ever since slavery was abolished the US has gone downhill. Everyone in the US is overpaid except Rahul.
6
That might mean something if you are Poor and educated well enough to understand that your being poor has nothing to do with the amount of effort you put into working or how good your work is.
I suspect you have it a lot better than most or at least think you do. We have a lot of folks in America who are actually working poor that think they are middle class.
I suspect you have it a lot better than most or at least think you do. We have a lot of folks in America who are actually working poor that think they are middle class.
2
Almost identical to the decision to refuse vaccinations. When enough opt out, the herd protection is lost and people start to suffer. If enough opt out of unions (or don't help pay for them) workers will lose the herd protection they provide and business, like the measles, will adversely affect laborers financial health with lower wages and fewer benefits.
464
That's been happening for a couple decades now.
2
Except measles is a devastating disease and not joining unions is not. If anything, the unions have outgrown their original purpose and become a disease in it's own right.
8
Well, there's yer problem.
Expecting Americans to think about the consequences of their actions, not only for those around them, but to themselves.
You can't expect the Most Selfish Generation to do that, can you?
Expecting Americans to think about the consequences of their actions, not only for those around them, but to themselves.
You can't expect the Most Selfish Generation to do that, can you?
3
What is wrong with this law? Why doesn't it translate to any state in the USA?
What is wrong with securing the right to not join a union?
You can still choose to belong or not.
As I see if if workers are empowered to make that choice for themselves it might force unions to clean up their acts and actually prove their worth to the work force. Not just force them to be a member if they want to secure a job.
Intriguing sign of true progress here. In my opinion.
Worker's should have this right. Why not?
What is wrong with securing the right to not join a union?
You can still choose to belong or not.
As I see if if workers are empowered to make that choice for themselves it might force unions to clean up their acts and actually prove their worth to the work force. Not just force them to be a member if they want to secure a job.
Intriguing sign of true progress here. In my opinion.
Worker's should have this right. Why not?
105
Please reread the article. It's legal *everywhere* to not join the union. What isn't legal everywhere is the right to receive union benefits (pay, working conditions, benefits) by refusing to pay any union dues. "Right to work" really means "Right to freeload."
47
Because your right to choose to be free of the union comes with no consequences, i.e. the lower wages and lack of benefits that the union has procured. As opposed to a principled stand trying to negotiate your own compensation you are a freeloader. And I thought the right hated freeloaders?
There is a website that promotes "Right to Work" legislation. I cut and paste this from that site: If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership.
There is a website that promotes "Right to Work" legislation. I cut and paste this from that site: If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership.
21
"it might force unions to clean up their acts and actually prove their worth to the work force"
I suggest you read a bit more about the history of labor unions and their contribution to the workplace. John Townsend's comment below is a good place to start.
The fact is that workers in states with so-called "right to work" laws typically earn lower wages and enjoy fewer benefits — which is why they're called "right to work for less" laws.
I suggest you read a bit more about the history of labor unions and their contribution to the workplace. John Townsend's comment below is a good place to start.
The fact is that workers in states with so-called "right to work" laws typically earn lower wages and enjoy fewer benefits — which is why they're called "right to work for less" laws.
9
If you are not currently the boss of your own company, you have benefited from the work of unions.
Has the administration of unions been perfect? No, but without them, we, the workers, would have no collective voice and no power to ask for better working conditions.
If you want to return to indentured servitude and deplorable working conditions, keep supporting Scott Walker and his backers.
Has the administration of unions been perfect? No, but without them, we, the workers, would have no collective voice and no power to ask for better working conditions.
If you want to return to indentured servitude and deplorable working conditions, keep supporting Scott Walker and his backers.
203
If workers are FORCED to join in order to actually secure work for themselves what impetus is there or check and balance in place to keep unions honest and ethical and from morphing into what (regrettably) most of them are today - dishonored entities that spit on the true spirit and intent of the history of union organization in this country.
Be honest here - this law makes sense and ensures workers are free to belong to whatever organization they freely want without fear they cannot secure work for themselves if they refuse to join. Isn't that exactly what this nation was founded on - free choice? I say to unions - make yourselves more honest and ethical and there should be nothing to fear here from this law - at all.
Be honest here - this law makes sense and ensures workers are free to belong to whatever organization they freely want without fear they cannot secure work for themselves if they refuse to join. Isn't that exactly what this nation was founded on - free choice? I say to unions - make yourselves more honest and ethical and there should be nothing to fear here from this law - at all.
8
Thank you I support him 100%- and yes slavery will return by giving the members THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER they want to join or not.
So the absurd benefit packages given to municipal workers across the country are considered indentured servitude? The ones we cannot afford to pay?
So the absurd benefit packages given to municipal workers across the country are considered indentured servitude? The ones we cannot afford to pay?
3
As Janis Joplin said, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." At least when it comes to right wing proposals like this one.
11
I would really appreciate it if the Times would start getting its descriptions of "being forced to pay union dues," straight.
This is because it's not true, and never has been: Federal law mandates that one may pay dues and be a member, or pay a fee (IF the local union even has a rule requiring any payment at all) that adds up to about 70% of dues, or apply for (and get) a religious or philosophical exemption from paying anything at all.
The only way you could possibly have anybody forced to pay dues would be in a "closed shop," and for public-sector workers, they're not legal. In the private sector, they're extremely rare.
Come on, already. I try not to attack the stories, but...
This is because it's not true, and never has been: Federal law mandates that one may pay dues and be a member, or pay a fee (IF the local union even has a rule requiring any payment at all) that adds up to about 70% of dues, or apply for (and get) a religious or philosophical exemption from paying anything at all.
The only way you could possibly have anybody forced to pay dues would be in a "closed shop," and for public-sector workers, they're not legal. In the private sector, they're extremely rare.
Come on, already. I try not to attack the stories, but...
30
Look out, Mississippi! We're right behind you!
145
You ain't kiddin. I am from the South. Overtime? Heck no. If you get paid straight time for overtime, you will be very lucky. Being forced to clock out but keep working was standard operating procedure. Paycheck a week late? Nothing you can do. Paycheck short? Be glad you got it at all. Need office supplies? Buy your own. Boss groping you? You want this job or not? It's not like you can go someplace better.
9
WooHoo! If we have the right to assemble, then we have the right NOT to assemble. This is a victory for civil rights.
10
" right to work".
The right to work where you are practically voiceless and powerless to negotiate for fair treatment, decent wages and benefits. The corporates and their puppets will only be happy when the work force becomes serfs in their New Feudalism. Serfs and cannon fodder, what else are the masses good for, eh boys?
The right to work where you are practically voiceless and powerless to negotiate for fair treatment, decent wages and benefits. The corporates and their puppets will only be happy when the work force becomes serfs in their New Feudalism. Serfs and cannon fodder, what else are the masses good for, eh boys?
117
If this is what Wisconsin wants..they got it! Glad I don't live there!
31
To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller: First they came for the workers in Wisconsin, and I did not speak out because I wasn't a worker in Wisconsin...
13
Coming to another Republican controlled state soon.
The trouble is that drunk with their successes in Wisconsin, these conservative "people" will be after the rest of us next.
This pretty much proves that Wisconsin Republicans don't care about working people. So-called "Right to Work" laws are really "Right to Get Cheated By the Boss" laws. Individuals rarely if ever have any real negotiating power in the hob market.
60
Yes having no choice whether you have to pay dues with the union is a much better choice- give us your money- whether you like it or not, or whether you like our politics or not. Yep thats cheating.
4
Whether or not you are pro-union, how can you argue that making non-union members pay a fee to a union to which they do not belong is anything other than a shakedown? Isn't this like the mob making store owners pay protection fees?
4
Yes it is. Endorsed, fought for and sanctioned by the Democratic Party Platform.
3
Because by law still they enjoy every single benefit including affective representation from firing that the union has procured through the dues of other members. If these laws were written so that non-union members were left on their own, without the benefits and representation of the dues paying members then you might have an argument.
18
"Isn't this like the mob making store owners pay protection fees?"
No, not really. "Protection fees" are schemes to get people to pay money so that they don't become the victim of an illegal act SOLELY because they don't pay the protection fee. In other words, give us $200 or your store may burn down.
No, not really. "Protection fees" are schemes to get people to pay money so that they don't become the victim of an illegal act SOLELY because they don't pay the protection fee. In other words, give us $200 or your store may burn down.
3
Should be true open shop rules. An employee can choose to collectively bargain with their employer along with other like minded employees and if so pay their dues to their chosen representative entity. Employees can also choose to bargain for themselves with their employee. They would not be covered by an collective bargaining agreement just the agreement they made as an individual with their employer and would owe no dues to any representative entity.
3
You mean the 85% of us working in the U.S. who are not working under a union agreement?
Gee, how could we possibly figure out how to even find a job?
Gee, how could we possibly figure out how to even find a job?
3
Really: my father once was hired to worked for an "open shop" as a contractor for a large city's transportation department. He subsequently was continually harassed and threatened with violence by the Teamster's shop steward and several of his enforcer's. He and his team finally joined the union, under duress. This is how an "open shop" really operates.
3
Yes the current open shop process... the process should allow each employee to decide whether they want to be a part of the bargaining unit. The effects of union thuggery is an issue no matter what kind of shop is implemented.
Concerted efforts at minimizing unions and education; tell me they aren't related in the overall Republican agenda. Does not bode well for the U.S. which, after all, is a union of states...
14
This is what happens when people don't bother to educate and inform themselves of what's going on, and in fact not even vote. The oligarchs have taken away the pie from the workers as easily as taking candy from a baby. And the funny thing is, they've even convinced the workers to blame themselves and those who are not in charge, like 'liberals' or minorities. It'd be funny if it wasn't real.
208
"This is what happens when people don't bother to educate and inform themselves of what's going on, and in fact not even vote."
And which party are they supposed to vote for? I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but the Democratic party hasn't been exactly "pro-union" or "pro-workers-rights" lately.
Look at how they are going full steam into charter schools so they can cut teachers' unions off at the knees.
Yes, we have a huge swath of uneducated voters who don't understand that Republicans are the worst of the worst. But they don't see the Democrats, such as conservo-crats like Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Tom Udall, etc., DOING or SAYING anything to protect working class interests, either.
Look at the last election. What Democrats lost? Conservo-crats. The party better wake up or they will lose the whole kit and caboodle to the Republicans.
And which party are they supposed to vote for? I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but the Democratic party hasn't been exactly "pro-union" or "pro-workers-rights" lately.
Look at how they are going full steam into charter schools so they can cut teachers' unions off at the knees.
Yes, we have a huge swath of uneducated voters who don't understand that Republicans are the worst of the worst. But they don't see the Democrats, such as conservo-crats like Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Tom Udall, etc., DOING or SAYING anything to protect working class interests, either.
Look at the last election. What Democrats lost? Conservo-crats. The party better wake up or they will lose the whole kit and caboodle to the Republicans.
3
Fact: 1980-2005 80% of all income to top 1%. Metaphor: 100 people order a 100 sliced pizza, and when it arrives the 1st guy takes 80 slices. When suggested he just take 79 slices, that´s socialism!!!
3
Now that "right-to-work" is now the law in yet another state, what is the labor movement doing about it, other than ineffectually raising its voice? As unions are weakened, so is the entire work-force that relies on its hands and its brains rather than on its investments to make a living.
I would suggest that instead of stressing the negatives of RTW, it's time for a movement that establishes the right to freely organize, which has not existed for years. For every worker that has unwillingly paid union dues there must be hundreds who have been thwarted by restrictive laws from organizing.
I would suggest that instead of stressing the negatives of RTW, it's time for a movement that establishes the right to freely organize, which has not existed for years. For every worker that has unwillingly paid union dues there must be hundreds who have been thwarted by restrictive laws from organizing.
66
Please. Give us some examples of "restrictive laws (for) organizing". How have unions kept people from organizing freely?
And what in the world does, "As unions are weakened, so is the entire work-force that relies on its hands and its brains rather than on its investments to make a living," mean? Please, I'd love to know.
And what in the world does, "As unions are weakened, so is the entire work-force that relies on its hands and its brains rather than on its investments to make a living," mean? Please, I'd love to know.
2
Your first point: have you seen what happens when the workers try to organize in the face of employer hostility?
Your second: exhibit A - the stagnation of middle class incomes that exactly paralleled the weakening of unions over 3 decades.
Your second: exhibit A - the stagnation of middle class incomes that exactly paralleled the weakening of unions over 3 decades.
2
Mancuroc, You still have not identified any "restrictive laws for organizing." The fact of the matter is that NLRA regulations are weighted heavily in favor of unions during an organizing drive. Unions can lie and exagerate about what will happen to workers once they are unionized and the unions are never held accountable for their outrageous claims. Just the opposite is true with regard to employers during an organizing drive. Employers are held to a high standard about what they can tell employees about unions and and union claims.