Unions suing Wisconsin over "right to work law"
 

The Wisconsin legislature bacame the latest state to pass so-called "right to work" laws, meaning that you cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

Now, what would be the argument against these laws? I'm pretty sure I've heard liberals categorize themselves as "pro choice." If that's true, they should be celebrating the fact that we now give working class Americans the ability to make yet another "choice" for themselves. They can "choose" whether or not to join the union.

One argument I've heard is that unions would be forced to negotiate on behalf of workers who don't pay dues. Rubbish. Federal labor law does not force unions to represent everyone...the law gives the unions the right to "choose" to represent only dues-paying members.

Interesting thing...when workers are given the right to "choose", a huge number "choose" to opt out of the union. That makes me think that the unions aren't as valuable to the well-being of the little guy, as they would have us believe.

Amazing to me that anyone, other than those who run unions, would be opposed to this. Soon, only the bluest of blue states, will not offer this choice. Should we call these states "anti-choice"?

Excellent!
I wish Mass. would do the same

Not exactly up to speed on this, but where I work union membership is not required, and the union is required to represent non-members. If I was a non-member I would not expect their best effort however...
There is a list on the bulletin board of non-members, and members are encouraged to discuss the benefits of membership with the people on the list...
I know one guy on that list that has a sketchy past history with our employer including a separation. (details are hazy, he won't discuss it). Our local president put in a lot of time and effort on his behalf and was successful in getting the guy over 1000 hours of sick leave back that he lost due to the separation...

Guy still won't join the union! :D
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the union is required to represent non-members"
There was a federal labor lawyer on TV last night, who said there re no laws that would require that unions represent non-members. Interesting.

Those who pay no dues, have no right to any benefits provided by the union. But no one should be forced to join a union as a condition of unemployment, especially in the public sector. Can't be a teacher unless you join a union, meaning part of your paycheck goes to elect Democrats, and part of your paycheck goes to Planned Parenthood? Ridiculous.

Not Legally mandated...probably contractually mandated.

Yes, I think it would be in the best interest of the union to bargain for all the employees whether they are in the union or not.

It would not benefit the union if non-union employees could bargain and contract for lower wages than union members in order to ensure getting open jobs. That would make it more attractive for companies to hire and bargain with non-union employees. And it would endanger union jobs, both in hiring and in negotiating new contracts when the old ones expire.

And it would not benefit unions if non-union employees could bargain for higher than union wages if they possessed superior resumes. That could also encourage the union members who thought they would be more valuable to the company than their union brothers to drop out of the union and negotiate for themselves. In general, it could damage the justification for the union.

So, whether union employees like it or not, it is to their advantage if their union sets wages and benefits for all employees, union or not.

Just an opinion, don't know if it's true or not.

I would love to see CT go right to work. Over the course of my career in education I will pay almost 30K in dues. Part of my dues goes to support politicians and causes I don't support - that shouldn't be the case. The worst part is when the union supports a completely incompetent teacher with my dues!

Unions had their place in our history, but the times have changed. Every time a state goes right to work people fly out of the Union. If membership was so good, people would be fighting to get in.

:btu::uhuh: well said

Nice to hear some truth from somebody who works in a profession that has been bolstered by unions to such a degree. You will never hear such humility from a fireman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like the law is good for Minnesota.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...pany-minnesota

Seems like his reasoning has little to do with the law not to mention his "plan " is a big maybe . Good for him though if it works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He believes the union helps him get the best employees and is concerned the law will erode that.

Also, socialist MN is investing in infrastructure.

2013 to 2015 Wisconsin had a $6 billion infrastructure budget
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those were his words, but maybe it's all about the law then :hihi:

I have 2 brothers who are public teachers in CT. One is a staunch Catholic. When he found out that a portion of his dues were going to Planned Parenthood, he successfully sued to get out of the union. He taught in Litchfield county at the time. We were roommates then, and boy you should have heard the anonymous messages that these tolerant liberals left on our machine.

CT will never, ever be right to work. North Korea will vote right to work before it ever happens here.

Bingo.

Right. There is a liberal myth that only liberals want to invest in safe bridges and roads, and that conservatives could care less if school buses full of orphans plunge off a dilapidated bridge.

Hate to break it to you, but in order to conclude that "the law is good for Minnesota", you need to consider all the shifts due to the law, not just the jobs coming in. If one company is setting up shop in MN as a protest of the law, but 10x that many jobs move to WI because of the law, would you still conclude that the law is good for MN?

Spence, why do so many people opt out of unions, once a state goes "right to work"? Any thoughts on that?

What difference does it make to Minnesota's DOT? If it needs infrastructure done, there will surely be companies, including Hoffman's, who already had contracts there, who will bid for the work. Having Hoffman expand his presence there does not expand the amount of infrastructure. Same for Wisconsin's DOT. If Hoffman wants to maintain contracts in WI, he still can. If he doesn't, there are other companies who will. Whatever infrastructure is needed will be done in either state regardless of Right To Work law or not. And each state will accept the bids they consider to be best for their budgets.

The real difference, if one emerges, will be in private businesses which do not contract with the state government.

A couple of Hoffman's comments were curious to me:

He says that RTW law would make it more difficult to gain skilled workers. How so? If he's willing to pay what the workers are worth, that should not be a problem. If he is more concerned with having to be competitive, with having a set union rate so he doesn't have to compete with other companies to get the best, most skilled workers, then I understand his concern. But RTW will merely make it easier for other companies who are willing to pay more than he is to get the best workers. Win/win. The competitive companies get the best workers, and the employees get the pay they "deserve."

He says that RTW would create tension among his employees. So, in other words, if everyone belongs to the union there is no tension among them? I recall being a union member in both public and private jobs where there was friction, either overt, but usually unspoken and sometimes bitter, between the more productive and least productive workers. It would seem to me, that in a RTW place, the more hostile tension would come from union members resentment against the non-union employees. If they all wanted to keep their job, regardless of what type of workplace, union, non-union, RTW, they would have to keep their tensions to themselves and just do their job. Hoffman seems to be a stick-in-the-mud, unprogressive, semi or totally tyrannical "boss" who is more concerned with his own comfort than the well-being of ALL of his employees. Would he be able to run a company if there were no unions? Maybe the "tension" he is more concerned with is that which arises between him and his employees, and the union is a buffer against that.

I think the real difference, ultimately between RTW and unionized states will be in the private sector where the real competition exists. As Jim in CT says, that remains to be seen.