People suck them they are fun to ride d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 8=======D d d d d d d d
These laws protect workers from being fired for going on a mandatory strike, and also prevent a forced union. The main purpose of of a union is for it to be a VOLUNTARY organization dedicated to fighting for workers rights, not a mandatory organization that you need to join or pay dues for, even when you are not a member. This issue is not about preventing unions, it is about preventing a mandatory dictatorship-type organization like North Korea. This is in everyone's best interest, because without all workers of a particular place on strike, there is still taxes going to the government. If your government is not corrupt, this is good.
I am all for right-to-work laws. They allow people to not be discriminated against. They also allow people to work or find work hat they might not have had access to before. I applaud states that implement these laws and will continue to vote in favor of them. They help out a lot of people in the world.
Right to work sounds like something good, it sounds like it should protect your job or give you extra rights and after all who doesn't want a job to support their family.
This deceptively named law weakens unions and lowers everyone's wages not just union members. A recent study of Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin concluded that wages had gone down by 2.6%. In certain professions wages went down even more. Benefits went down as well. So did equality of pay between men and women, because most union contracts have transparent wages and people earn equal amount. Fatalities on the job went up since unions had fewer resources to represent non-members and members. Unions must represent non-members according to federal law lest they be charged with duty of fair representation. But in non right to work hurts states, they have to pay a "fair share" or agency fee to cover the costs of contract negotiation and contract administration like filing grievances and taking cases to arbitration.
It's like joining the YMCA but not paying to join. Or being forced to give free food to customers who criticize your restaurant.
See the study by the University of Illinois-Urbana- Champaign on right to work. It compared 3 states who passed the law to three who didn't
Right to Work laws are not good for states because they do not protect the employees from any little whim of their employers. Labor unions are good for employees because they work on their behalf. It seems as though the only ones employers actually look out for is themselves, and if there were more labor unions around this would not be an issue.
Do right-to-work laws somehow generate more income? Some would say that the ability for corporations to set up without the "threat" of unions means more income for the state. But what about the other costs? What about the state-funded health care that must go to those who are injured on the job injuries? There's no other place where these people can go for help, what with the lack of representation as a group (that's what unions do, after all). I bet if someone looked at the the actual numbers, they would find that states suffer more than they gain due to these laws, for reasons I can't even begin to imagine.
No, from what I've read, I do not think right to work laws are good for any state. I know some people think that unions are bad, but unions help keep people's wages fair, often times. When the state becomes a right to work state, that means they can work for whatever wage they are willing to take. I think this lowers wages overall for workers, which is not good for the economy.