Reply With Quote
aka, Right to Earn Less.
all states with RTW laws have lower avg wages than non RTW states.
RTW = War on Employees
aka, Right to Earn Less.
all states with RTW laws have lower avg wages than non RTW states.
RTW = War on Employees
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-work/1751081/
"Right-to-work legislation makes it illegal to require financial support of a union as a condition of employment. Snyder and Republican leaders characterized the bills as giving workers a choice . Democrats said the initiative is about union-busting and retribution for Proposal 2, a failed Nov. 6 labor-backed ballot initiative that would have barred a right-to-work law and enshrined collective bargaining in the state cons ution."
So, Big Labor (lol) tried a similar tactic last month and it failed...somehow they're surprised and shocked at this?
Not the smartest knives in the drawer.
Nailed it. The moment Prop2 failed to be enshrined in the Cons ution, it opened the door wiiiide open for RTW legislation. The Unions gambled and lost (pretty handily, I might add). Now theyre sour grapes.
lol simpleton.
Ever factor regional differences in cost of living into that bit of "analysis" or did you just crib that from thinkprogress?
red state regions are generally less unionized, less educated, and poorer than blue states, as well as being annually bailed out by blue states.
Its the Sharpest Mr. Butter knife.
lol me and my mixed metaphors!
Nice dodge. Again.
It's not a dodge if it is the only talking point he has that has something in common with the topic being discussed. He could, however, work on his segues so it wouldn't be so obvious.
Except, that's not really a cogent point either. It's just the same old, tired, debased red-state bubba campaign he's waged for years.
Oh I never said that it was a cogent point. I just said that as he poured over his notes, this was the closest talking point to what was being discussed. His handlers didn't prepare him for this conversation.
I did the same this last year got hammered by the grammar cops.lol me and my mixed metaphors!
In the private sector, we have contracts between workers and employers...don't "right to work" regulations necessarily mean big government intrusions on these private contracts?
"Right to Work" means big business colluding with big government to dictate the terms for working people.
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 12-11-2012 at 09:03 PM.
WTF?
It means that each employee has the right to decide if he wants to pay dues to a union that has a political agenda that he may or may not agree with.
"If you don't like it, find another job." I heard this line regarding the WalMart strike.
But when it comes to collective bargaining, you want a big government intrusion on a private contract.
You're confused....the legislation does nothing of the sort.
"Right to work" is an example of government intrusion into the free market. It bans a particular contract provision that could be agreed to between employees and employer.
A Libertarian perspective (The Freeman):
What’s Wrong with Right-to-Work
A “union shop” agreement between an employer and a union commits the employer to ensuring that new hires join the union within a specified period. Right-to-work laws ban union-shop agreements.
Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract.
If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the Indiana legislature the right to interfere?
Employers own the wages they will pay and the sites where work will be performed under such contracts. So it’s their right to dispense the wages and make the sites available specifically to union members, just as it’s their right, more generally, to trade with anyone they choose.
When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and possessions. Treating this kind of interference as acceptable means licensing arbitrary interventions into the market by politicians, who are ill-equipped to second-guess the decisions made by the real people making work agreements with one another.
And there’s no principled way to draw a sharp line here: Once it’s okay for a legislature to interfere with bargaining in this way, there’s no stopping politicians from setting wages and prices, or requiring or prohibiting the hiring of particular people.
It’s not the job of the government to interfere with free agreements to lower costs or boost incomes. Presumably the government could force lots of people to work for no wages at all. That would also do what right-to-work laws do, albeit much more dramatically: It would treat people as slaves. The same would be true if it mandated wages for everyone.
-more>
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 12-12-2012 at 05:45 AM.
Unions should exist but they should be 100 percent private and funded by private donations and dues.
Are you serious?
You need to do some more reading on the topic. What you just said is not correct. You must be tuning into lib propaganda.
Such collective contracts, without 100% agreement on the employees, is authoritarian and communistic. Unionism already removes individual bargaining. Employees still fall under the agreements, but they just don't have to finance the union.Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract.
The right to work legislation didnt ban a ing thing. Anybody can still join a union. It's now no longer compulsory.
Really, this isn't complex nor difficult to understand. I don't know why you cant/wont grok this.
He's just a lemming, repeating what his liberal masters tell him to say.
Just because someone disagrees with your enlightened perspective doesn't make them a lemming, WC. :facepalm
True, but I like saying it. You weren't much nicer to him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
