• I am glad I have choice.

    I work in manufacturing, and have worked for a plant that has a union and am currently working in one that doesn't. And I'd much rather work as a non-union worker. There are several reasons, such as paying dues to an organization who uses that money to lobby for political policies that a large portion of their members don't support. Also unions make it harder to get rid of people who are lazy, unproductive and unsafe, which is unfair to their co-workers. And in my experience non union jobs provide wages and benefits that are just as good as union jobs. This is why I choose to not be apart of one, and I would hate to work in a state where I am forced to join one.

  • Hostess Union Strike

    Hostess' Union had a big strike last year and look where that went. No jobs all because of the stupid Union and all the people in the not right to work states were forced to strike compare to non unionized people they were able to strike mainly in the south. Just before Christmas last year workers in Savannah went on strike. However, they all did not have to because Georgia is a right to work state where unionization is not required. Being a right to work state though means lower wages, but less people get laid off because of unions.

  • Yes and the workers are too.

    It is a competitive world and the unions must learn to compete, too. No business can force buyers to buy their product (except the government of course) and no union should have that power. If they are serving their members they will join. No one is taking collective bargaining away from the workers. Further, when companies look to locate plants/offices/shops they clearly look for right-to-work states. So the state has a much better chance of landing more jobs for their citizens. Finally, the union "protections" have pretty much been written into law: wage and hours, OSHA, unemployment, discrimination, harassment, etc. protect workers now. There is a place for unions, but not at the expense of the employees' right to choose.

  • Its the economy, duh

    When Unions hold companies hostage by demanding wage increases, the product line is disrupted and causes a loss of productivity. This loss of productivity leads to lower profits, which means lower taxes collected by the state. Also, by demanding hire wages and preventing other labor from competing for wages, unions increase the unemployment rate. An increased unemployment rate would put a strain on the state due to welfare needed for those unemployed.

  • Yes, right-to-work states are better off, since workers are not forced to join a union.

    Workers should not be forced to have to join a union. Unions are very powerful and don’t always have the best interest of workers or the companies they deal with in mind. Companies can actually provide more jobs when they don’t have to deal with unions. It is better to have more regular paying jobs than to have a few high paying jobs while the rest of the population is unemployed. Sometimes employees can be victim to greed just like employers tend to be, and this tends to be the case when work unions force workers to join them.

  • Right to work is a misnomer

    There is no real data to conclude that right to work benefits any significant number of people. Unions can demonstrate that they have benefited many, many people, over and over again. The benefits earned by unionized employees have set standards that would never have been obtained under "right to work" legislation. Right to work is a form of corporate assistance and should be called "wage erosion legislation"

  • Right to work for less. (by Payton Gordon)

    The Taft-Hartley act, a seemingly anti-communist agenda arising during the immediate post WW2 era is and has always been harmful to the prosperity of union and non-union workers. Borne out of the Taft-Hartley act, right-to-work work laws allow non-union workers to be employed among once solely unionized workforces. Seen as a threat to equal opportunity for employment, right-to-work laws undermine the beneficial effects that the collective bargaining of a unionized workforce brings and turns it into a situation that is harmful to both parties. Non-unionized workers essentially become free-riders, escaping union dues while reaping the rewards of union efforts. Due to the decrease of capital flow towards union groups, these free-riders drive down the local economy and diminish labor standards. The deleterious effects of right-to-work laws further hinder economic growth by creating a situation where the state fears that the improvement of labor standards could potentially induce capital flight. Evidence for the downward spiral of labor standards in right-to-work states is documented by Tim Bartik of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research who found that wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-right-to-work states. It is clear that the free-rider effect creates a redirection of capital flow that ultimately leads to a negative impact on both non-union and unionized workers.

  • No. The "right to work" laws cripple the power of the working class, leaving them at the mercy of the corporations

    Unions are present for a reason--they give workers a way to protect themselves from exploitation. Unions originally started because workers had to endure horrible conditions all in the name of profits. Unions ensured that these conditions met minimum standards. Basically, they became a powerful bargaining tool. You will notice that unions did not form in companies where workers were treated right. Doesn't that say something? It's almost as if when workers were taken care of, they didn't feel the need to negotiate with their bosses. In right to work states, statistics prove that working conditions are lower, workers get paid less, and on the job injuries are much, much higher. How in the world is that helpful to anyone?

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