Amazon.com Widgets

Are "right-to-work" laws good (yes) or bad (no) for states?

  • Most of those opposed have never been in a union, they just believe the garbage they hear on tv or read on facebook.

    The ignorant people I have talked to that are against unions all say the same thing, "Unions had their place in the 20s but in this day and age they are making it impossible for a business owner to make any money. Why should someone who (insert a job your normal college grad feels is beneath him) make that much money?" I look at unions this way, its job insurance. How many jobs have you had improved working conditions and benefits as time has gone on? Me personally, they have all gotten worse. There are expectations to stay late, work after hours for free, cancel vacation time for deadlines, increase workload while other people are let go to bolster the bottom line, and the list goes on. The two unions I have worked in sat with management and clear job expectations were agreed upon, benefits were negotiated and they were better than any non union shop I have worked in. The working conditions were better and quality of life for me was much better.
    I have noticed that people in this country are quick to blame others for receiving handouts or being greedy or lazy or even being overpaid for what they would consider menial labor.
    I am not anti business, I am anti greed and when I look at the modern business model I worry about this country's future. Why is there no outrage from CEOs that move profitable businesses overseas for a quick bonus? Where are we headed? Its simple, head down to any Walmart, look around, extremely low pay, little to no benefits, miserable working conditions and owners who make an astounding amount compared to what they are paying employees and even finding ways to legally pay them less. Unions are in place to protect working people.

  • "Right-to-work" laws are good for states.

    "Right-to-work" laws are good for states. "Right-to-work" laws allow employers to hire individuals that are not members of labor unions, as a result employers have the advantage of hiring more people at a lower wage. "Right-to-work" laws reduce the effect of labor unions on industries and allow industries to grow at a faster rate because they are able to hire more individuals and be more productive.

  • People should choose.

    Right to work laws are good for states, because a union should have to prove its worth in order for people to join it. A union should have to prove to the people involved that it does work that benefits them enough to pay their dues. Otherwise unions are for thugs and bullies who just want to take people's money and then be a union boss.

  • Yes and no

    See I do not disagree with the original intent of the unions. THey were created when companies were simply treating people as slaves more or less. Killing them if necessary and threatening their families. A fair wage is a competitive wage, otherwise the business will leave and everyone will end up unemployed. The problem being today's unions believe a fair wage is what they think is fair not based on economic trends.

    A limited, reasonably sized union who knows they shouldn't be asking for ridiculous vacation days, or golf courses nor that if forces the workers to be a member works good. Union fees are no different than healthcare law, pay a fee to even work, for a business to hire you they have to pay the gov a fee, for you to work you have to pay the union a fee.

    This changed from what it used to be, hiring is suppose to be rewarded not punished by powers that be.

    So...After this much time...For now yes right to work are better. But again as time goes by right to work might end up like unions as its opposite where businesses again abuse their workers beyond belief. Hell already businesses threaten you because they will suggest if you don't work faster within the same timeframe they'll fire you and someone without papers will take your spot...So, some places could use unions but the risk seems to be too great.

    Posted by: N711
  • No, right-to-work laws are bad for states.

    I think that right-to-work laws are bad for states. I think that such a law seems to imply that everyone has the right to work. And such a concept just isn't true. Not everybody has the right to work since some people do not have the skills to do so.

  • Being able to unionize is a HUMAN RIGHT.

    Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights explains:
    (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
    (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
    (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
    (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
    Article 8 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states:
    (1) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:
    (a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
    (b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade-union organizations;
    (c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
    (d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.

    Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
    (1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
    (2) No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.
    (3) Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labor Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize

  • They are awful.

    This is a draconian principal put on paper and passed as legislation all under the guise and banner of sounding good. The only thing this does is guarantee that companies can rip their workers off and not allow them to unionize. If I remember correctly, it also has an effect on unemployment benefits.

  • Unless we give unions the right to bargain for member-specific benefits

    The logic is simple if you didn't pay in you have no business being entitled to any of the benefits the union is able to secure. I would OK with a right-to-work law that also gives unions the right to negotiate for members-specific benefits even to explicitly agree that non-members will not get certain benefits. They didn't pay in why should they get to benefit?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.