I watch CNBC and Fox Business during most mornings. All of the States that are gaining large scale manufacturing or assembly jobs/facilities from my vantage point are all located in right to work states. The contrarian viewpoint states 7 out of the 10 poorest states are right to work. This "poorest" states have held this status for decades prior to the right to work legislation. So its another progressive not the full story narrative. I would wager non monetarily speaking that many of the No supporters have never managed a actual P&L.
They Are Beneficial Right To Work laws are beneficial. They allow individuals who are unable or not qualified to work the ability to do so. I think they are a good thing. More people working means more people spending, which is good for the economy and communities as well. There should be ore Right To Work laws.
Right To Work laws are beneficial. They allow individuals who are unable or not qualified to work the ability to do so. I think they are a good thing. More people working means more people spending, which is good for the economy and communities as well. There should be ore Right To Work laws.
Right to work laws are extremely beneficial. The reason they are set in place as it is is for unions not to gain too much power and become the bully on the street towards those who have no desire to join one. Unions may have their advantages but they also have many risks involved with joining. Right to work laws give the common man his choice on what decision permits to his lifestyle.
The supporters of Right To Work legislation argue that it increases the freedom of workers by giving them a choice about whether to join a union or not. While it is true that giving people options increases their 'freedom' in a short-term sense, the real problem is that by giving workers a choice of whether or not they want to join a union for their job, the unions in states with these laws will inevitably shrink. If I'm a lower-class person who desperately needs money, I might not look to closely at the fine print of the advantages and disadvantages (of which both do indeed exist) of being a union member. I might simply see that it costs $30 less to not be in a union and make decision solely on that factor. There will be many people like me who choose to opt out of a union because they don't fully understand why they exist or the benefits they provide. This is not a jab at lower-class people, it is simply the probable conclusion of making all unions optional. There will be and are fewer and smaller unions in RTW states. This is desirable if you are a big business because it gives you more control over your employees. It is desirable if you receive campaign funding from big businesses for the same reason. That's why republicans support RTW laws and, in Michigan, pushed them through without listening to the opposition's opinions. Unions exist for a crucially important reason: to defend workers from the injustices that used to be inflicted on them (and still are in many places [especially places where there are no unions]) by businesses driven only by the bottom line. A future with fewer and smaller unions, the future that businesses and politicians who support RTW laws want, is a future where workers have fewer rights. And isn't having those basic worker's rights the real meaning of economic freedom? We've been through this before. Unions are essential to our economy. Therefore, it is essential that RTW legislation is stopped immediately.
Right to work only hurts in the long run. Yes, it may seem that they help, but they don't. Right to work will now give those a job, but they can now fire you for any reason. It is a double edged sword. Now they employer has the right to treat you like a piece of gum on his shoe and if you want the job, the only thing you can do is take it. Unions may not be perfect, they have their flaws as every system does, but when push comes to shove, at least if they let me go, it will be for a valid, deserved reason, and not something stupid or because my boss is having a bad day.
Right-to-work laws simply take the power away from workers and give it back to the companies in charge. When we're talking about companies that treat their workers right, this is not a big deal. But what about those companies that don't? What about those companies that exploit their workers? And don't try and tell me this doesn't happen...we can find thousands of examples right now of workers being exploited and their health being put at risk for the bottom line. It was these exact conditions that caused the formation of unions. Those unions are directly responsible for saving the lives and health of workers. Now people want to take those rights away? Are our memories so short? Or do we all really think that we won't need these protections? Are we all that blind? Apparently, yes.