Gov. Walker Signs Right to Work Bill Into Law

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

    Mar 10, 2015 5:31 PM GMT
    michael61 said
    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.

    I see no problem with your suggestion. It would be similar to a group of baseball players choosing to have a firm represent them and negotiate in their behalf. In this case, however, companies would be free to undermine the unions by offering the same union negotiated deal to non-union workers. Unions would claim that quitting or not joining the union would be a decision not good for the workers in the long run, but workers would still make the choice. Keeping money instead of spending on union dues would still be a powerful incentive to stay out of the union.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 6:58 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    michael61 said
    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.

    I see no problem with your suggestion. It would be similar to a group of baseball players choosing to have a firm represent them and negotiate in their behalf. In this case, however, companies would be free to undermine the unions by offering the same union negotiated deal to non-union workers. Unions would claim that quitting or not joining the union would be a decision not good for the workers in the long run, but workers would still make the choice. Keeping money instead of spending on union dues would still be a powerful incentive to stay out of the union.


    If a company is given the option to pay less to non union workers, they most likely would to take advantage of this to save money on their payroll. If any union member is considering opting out of the union, they may want to reconsider because once you opt out, you may not be able to change your mind later. Whatever decision you make now will be binding on all of your future employment there. You can't opt out and then rejoin later on. Your decision will be permanent for the rest of your employment there. And if you do decide to opt out, keep in mind that if you are unjustly fired, the union will not defend you. And there will be nothing you can do to get your job back. If you are not a union member, the company will not need to share with the union or anyone the reasons why they fired you. If you are not a union member, the company does not even have to have a reason why they terminated your employment. If they don't give you a just reason, you will be able to collect unemployment from the state unemployment fund, but you will not be able to get your job back. Trust me. I know from experience and even saw a lawyer regarding this and he said an employer can terminate any employee at any time without giving you even a reason for the termination. It's one of the reasons why you may want to think twice about not joining the union. If you have a lot of seniority in the company and your wages are high and you opt out of the union, you are a sitting duck and you may just find yourself out on the street someday because you are making too much money and the company wants to hire some new people at a lower pay. I've seen this done many times by employers, so don't think they won't ever do this. They would just as soon put you out on street because you have a lot of seniority and are getting old and they can hire a younger person who can do just as good a job as you for a lot less money. The longer you have worked for a company, the older you are, and the more pay and benefits you are receiving, the more riskier it is for you to get terminated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 7:09 PM GMT
    When you change union dues from being mandatory to being voluntary, you add HUGE transaction costs and sorely hurt the union's ability to continue.

    This is union busting. Make no mistake. And it will lead to worse working conditions, fewer benefits, and lower wages for blue collar workers.

    Unions look out for the worker.
    Corporations look out for the bottom line.

    Who's your daddy?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 7:09 PM GMT
    The company might choose to offer the same salary and benefits to non-union workers even if it costs more if they believe it would ultimately undermine the union. As far as choices being permanent, would the unions reject someone who changed their mind and wanted to join? Would they turn down an income stream?

    As far as all the benefits you cited, many workers in right-to-work states have decided the conditions are such that union membership is not worth it to them, either because of benefits or the desire to see their dues not support politicians not of their choosing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 7:28 PM GMT
    The alternative to Unions?

    Minimum wage.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22454

    Mar 10, 2015 8:30 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidThe alternative to Unions?

    Minimum wage.
    not necessarily. Not all employers will race to the bottom like you fear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 10:17 PM GMT
    @RoadBikeRob

    Too bad your speculation is a crock of shit.

    snapshot-unionmembership.png&w=608

    Union workers make 13.6 percent MORE than non-union workers.

    Union workers are 53 percent MORE likely to have a pension plan, than non-union workers.

    Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/

    Nice try, but nobody's buying that corporate/GOP/conservative BS. You can argue we ought not to have unions for OTHER reasons, but you cannot have your own set of facts. Unions are a net benefit to workers. It's fine to say workers shouldn't have unions, should have lower wages, and should have less benefits for no reason or any other reason. But don't hurt a worker and say you're helping him/her. That's pathetic.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22454

    Mar 11, 2015 2:12 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@RoadBikeRob

    Too bad your speculation is a crock of shit.

    snapshot-unionmembership.png&w=608

    Union workers make 13.6 percent MORE than non-union workers.

    Union workers are 53 percent MORE likely to have a pension plan, than non-union workers.

    Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/

    Nice try, but nobody's buying that corporate/GOP/conservative BS. You can argue we ought not to have unions for OTHER reasons, but you cannot have your own set of facts. Unions are a net benefit to workers. It's fine to say workers shouldn't have unions, should have lower wages, and should have less benefits for no reason or any other reason. But don't hurt a worker and say you're helping him/her. That's pathetic.
    No my speculation is not a crock of shit. You are too damned liberal for your own good. These labor unions have outlived their usefulness to society. All they have done in recent decades is chase more business out of this country because of their never ending unrealistic demands. That is why most older northern cities lost their industrial base and are still struggling. Detroit went bankrupt, Buffalo is still under a strong state appointed control board, other older cities like St Louis, Milwaukee, Toledo, Cleveland are all facing budget uncertainties due to the loss of their industrial base thanks in part to the greedy, crooked labor unions. It is no wonder that almost all our heavy industry migrated to China, India, and The Philippines. But you are too blind to see that harsh reality because it was largely thanks to your beloved democratic party, the same political organization that destroyed most of the older northern cities with their disastrous 50 to 60 year monolithic rule. You don't come from an older northern city so you just don't understand.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22454

    Mar 12, 2015 12:24 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWalker would make a superb President.
    +200,000.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 12:29 AM GMT
    @RoadBikeRob

    Nice argumentum ad Democrat, would you now like to respond to the FACTS I presented in my original post:

    Union workers make 13.6 percent MORE than non-union workers.

    Union workers are 53 percent MORE likely to have a pension plan, than non-union workers.

    Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/

    Have fun spinning that. Money talks baby, so do pension plans $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 4:33 AM GMT
    I guess Socal and co enjoy this:

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=568550&playlistId=1.2275627&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1


    ...and you wonder why unions exist, warts and all.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22454

    Mar 12, 2015 11:44 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@RoadBikeRob

    Nice argumentum ad Democrat, would you now like to respond to the FACTS I presented in my original post:

    Union workers make 13.6 percent MORE than non-union workers.

    Union workers are 53 percent MORE likely to have a pension plan, than non-union workers.

    Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/

    Have fun spinning that. Money talks baby, so do pension plans $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    Yeah and so do the footsteps of business and industry when they continue to leave for cheaper locales like China, India, and the Philippines. You are a real piece of work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2015 9:04 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWalker would make a superb President.


    Obama has made it clear that he will not give up continuing his reform of America to a Republican who opposes this. It would take another physical revolution to restrain Obama because there's no way he would turn over any keys to the White House to Walker. He will find a way around this as he always has with everything else.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22454

    Mar 14, 2015 11:14 PM GMT
    michael61 said
    southbeach1500 saidWalker would make a superb President.


    Obama has made it clear that he will not give up continuing his reform of America to a Republican who opposes this. It would take another physical revolution to restrain Obama because there's no way he would turn over any keys to the White House to Walker. He will find a way around this as he always has with everything else.
    If a significant majority of voters elect Scott Walker president, Barack Obama is not going to have any viable choice but to adhere to the will of the American people and turn over the White House keys to the president elect regardless whether it is a democrat or a republican. You are being a little paranoid about this.