Gov. Walker Signs Right to Work Bill Into Law

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2015 3:16 PM GMT
    Everyone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2015 3:32 PM GMT
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]

    Would the alternative be forcing workers to join a union against their wishes and have their union dues go to support sometimes lavish lifestyles of union bosses as well as politicians and causes they don't believe in?
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 09, 2015 3:37 PM GMT
    Apparently we believe in democracy except when it applies to the workplace. This should be called the "Right To Work For Less" bill.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 09, 2015 3:42 PM GMT
    It's a shame the unions dug their own grave decades ago by getting so involved in politics. When they did, it was just a matter of time before the corporations took them down.

    The unions should have stuck to their bread and butter like collective bargaining, member insurance benefits, etc.

    But no.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 09, 2015 3:47 PM GMT
    So it's ok for corporations to have representation on K Street, but not the workers.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 09, 2015 3:52 PM GMT
    No, but the way the unions went about it did themselves in. I'm old enough to remember the old Teamsters and AFL-CIO.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Mar 09, 2015 5:00 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidNo, but the way the unions went about it did themselves in. I'm old enough to remember the old Teamsters and AFL-CIO.

    I agree the unions dug their own graves by being unreasonable at the bargaining table and pushing beyond common sense in the workplace, but the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction, that it is the Corporation that is being unreasonable. I haven't checked it, but I heard over the week-end that for the first time, collective corporate profits exceed collective labor costs in the US. That is why the middle class is disappearing. That is greed. That is why condos in NY and London can sell for $100 million. Greed has always been with us and when strongly progressive tax policy (and estate tax) was in place as it was from WW2 until Reagan, the economy and the people of our society all benefitted. Even the rich. This inequality of income AND ownership has distorted everything. Those who have are gambling with investments because they can afford to lose it. And the workers in society are being ground into the lowest common denominator for the international workforce as a whole. We're not there yet, but we're heading that way fast. That isn't good for society. We, the people.

    Collective bargaining works. It balances the power. And income/wealth tax policies can temper greed while still allowing the rich to be rich.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2015 5:38 PM GMT
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclusive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 09, 2015 5:38 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidNo, but the way the unions went about it did themselves in. I'm old enough to remember the old Teamsters and AFL-CIO.


    And I'm 11 years older than you and lived next door to people in unions for many years.
    Railroad unions, They gutted the railroads by the mid 1980s. They've made recoveries since then with the exclusion of unions.
    Steel workers union, They killed the ability of the US steel companies to compete back before the 1970s.
    Glass workers Union (Corning Glass, Corning NY)

    Look at the Unions in Fed govt. They're the ones who make sure employees who are caught stealing, watching porn at work, or anything else will receive their paychecks, bonuses and benefits.

    Someone needs to look up the hidden costs in cars made by Detroit's union dominated manufacturers. I remember reading about it some years ago and was furious about the amaount and where the money was going.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2015 5:41 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidNo, but the way the unions went about it did themselves in. I'm old enough to remember the old Teamsters and AFL-CIO.


    Same here, and the Budd Company, which used to manufacture transportation products of all kinds until Big Labor did it in. Even Roger Moore had a scene in one of his satires about corrupt union politics, and it was a hoot!
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 09, 2015 6:02 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclujsive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.


    It also makes it possible to get the benefits of the Union without the dues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2015 6:05 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclujsive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.


    It also makes it possible to get the benefits of the Union without the dues.


    Perhaps, but do those benefits outweigh those burdens?
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 09, 2015 7:15 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclujsive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.


    It also makes it possible to get the benefits of the Union without the dues.


    Perhaps, but do those benefits outweigh those burdens?


    Apparently so.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 09, 2015 10:49 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclujsive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.


    It also makes it possible to get the benefits of the Union without the dues.


    Perhaps, but do those benefits outweigh those burdens?


    Apparently so.



    So reading the last few lines, it appears the unions don't want people getting pay and benefits equal to theirs without paying the unions for the privilege of getting those wages and benefits

    And unions pitch temper tantrums when governments will not forcibly confiscate portions of non union employees' wages and hand it over to union bosses.

    So when you lift up the curtain on this what this union idea of forced wage deductions of all employees amounts to is the government forcing employees to join/financially support unions even if they are against them.

    So you can stop right there and try to rationalize this type of behavior being anything short of mafia thuggery with government complicity.

    It ought to give you a glimpse at the souls of the people support this.


  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 09, 2015 11:05 PM GMT
    Nonsense. The government isn't forcing anyone. The employees vote and the majority chooses to be a union shop and pay dues, or not. All can live by the decision of the majority or seek employment elsewhere.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 09, 2015 11:42 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidNonsense. The government isn't forcing anyone. The employees vote and the majority chooses to be a union shop and pay dues, or not. All can live by the decision of the majority or seek employment elsewhere.


    Nope. It doesn't work that way.

    New employees aren't given votes when they are hired. Under union mentality, union dues would be deducted by employers from their salaries if they join the union or not.

    And this concept of discrimination in employment on the basis of Union support... Thanks for showing us there's no difference between unions and mafia shakedown scams.

    That's the exact "tyranny of the majority" thinking that led to the decline of unions and the industries involved with them.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14303

    Mar 10, 2015 12:33 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclusive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.
    This is exactly the kind of legislation that is long overdue in New York. The labor unions along with the unmotivated urban poor and the crooked, money hungry politicians have destroyed this once great state. But unfortunately, it will never happen because New York is such a staunch blue democratic state and solidly pro Union.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 12:39 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    MGINSD said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclusive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.
    This is exactly the kind of legislation that is long overdue in New York. The labor unions along with the unmotivated urban poor and the crooked, money hungry politicians have destroyed this once great state. But unfortunately, it will never happen because New York is such a staunch blue democratic state and solidly pro Union.


    You're spot-on RBB. And, FDR got it right: government employees should NOT be permitted to organize or join unions a/o bargain collectively. As long as there's civil service, they're already protected, and experience has shown that the gov't employee-politician combine is deadly to governmental efficiency and fiscal responsibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 12:51 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]


    "Legally steal?" "Lawless?" Let's look at the relevant text of the new law, which forbids unions "To deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable by the employee giving to the employer at least 30 days' written notice of the termination."

    All this bill does is eliminate mandatory union membership and deduction of union dues, which remain permitted w/ the employees' express written authorization. Remember that contract bennies are different from union membership bennies, and usually not as inclusive. One likely effect of the new law could be reduction of union bosses' salaries and perks, so that they are more in line with those of the workers they purport to represent. As for its "lawlessness," the unions may well choose to challenge it in court, where it's legality will be determined and we'll know if its presumably lawful enactment and implementation will be found otherwise.


    I see no problem with workers choosing not to join the union, but then they should not be entitled to any of the contract negotiations which the unions have negotiated, since non union workers have not paid anything for these services. They should negotiate their own wages and benefits directly with management. And if non union workers get fired unjustly, they should have to defend themselves and not expect the union to represent them when they are not a union member and have not paid any dues for these services. Why should a union have to represent an employee, who is not one of their members? To demand this service from them when you are not paying for this service, is plain stealing. Everyone has the right to eat and have food from a grocery store, but you don't have the right to have this food without paying for it. Why should non union members received union benefits, wages, and other contract negotiations, which they have paid nothing to receive? They should be required to negotiate their own wages and benefits and not expect the union to do this for them when they are not a member of the union. There is no free lunch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 1:06 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    michael61 saidEveryone in the state has always had the right to work, so this bill doesn't change anything there. But now workers can legally steal from unions and receive all the services and benefits of unions without having to pay anything for it. It's another lawless bill.

    http://wbay.com/2015/03/09/gov-walker-signs-right-to-work-bill-into-law/[/url]

    Would the alternative be forcing workers to join a union against their wishes and have their union dues go to support sometimes lavish lifestyles of union bosses as well as politicians and causes they don't believe in?


    I see no problem, if a worker doesn't want to join union for whatever reason, but then they have to be willing to accept whatever the company wants to give them. They have no right to any of the contract negotiations, which the union negotiated for its members. To receive these oontract negotations from the union, but not pay for them is clearly stealing. They should negotiate their own wages and accept whatever the company wants to pay them, even if it is less then union workers. You can't expect to have your cake and eat it too.
    That's one of the benefits of union membership that a non union worker has no entitlements to.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 10, 2015 1:11 AM GMT
    No Free Lunch? A union supporter saying that?

    It's time for piss test.

    Do a little reading about the free lunches going on for years that federal govt employee unions make sure even the criminals in their own ranks get their tax dollar paid salaries and benefits after conviction. No Free lunch?

    Go read about all the cases of this just in the Veterans' Administration that are the main part of the scandal that has been going on there for over a decade.

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 10, 2015 2:33 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidNonsense. The government isn't forcing anyone. The employees vote and the majority chooses to be a union shop and pay dues, or not. All can live by the decision of the majority or seek employment elsewhere.


    yeah right, try getting a job as an electrician in New Jersey and not pay union dues - you are not going to work ... period
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14303

    Mar 10, 2015 2:45 AM GMT
    tj85016 said
    Physiqueflex saidNonsense. The government isn't forcing anyone. The employees vote and the majority chooses to be a union shop and pay dues, or not. All can live by the decision of the majority or seek employment elsewhere.


    yeah right, try getting a job as an electrician in New Jersey and not pay union dues - you are not going to work ... period
    Also in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland any of these high taxed, blue democrat northeastern states you have to be a union tradesman or you are guaranteed permanent unemployment meaning no work and no money. That is just how it is in the good ol northeast.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 5:11 AM GMT
    indeed a quandary but the unions make the middle class what it was. The middle class now steady declining.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 10, 2015 3:31 PM GMT
    michael61 said

    I see no problem, if a worker doesn't want to join union for whatever reason, but then they have to be willing to accept whatever the company wants to give them. They have no right to any of the contract negotiations, which the union negotiated for its members. To receive these oontract negotations from the union, but not pay for them is clearly stealing. They should negotiate their own wages and accept whatever the company wants to pay them, even if it is less then union workers. You can't expect to have your cake and eat it too.
    That's one of the benefits of union membership that a non union worker has no entitlements to.


    Then the unions should be forced to practice truth in advertising and recruiting by admitting they are not interested in promoting workers' rights and be required to say they are focused solely on union workers rights. That would clear up any misunderstandings.