Michigan voting on "right to work", what is the controversy here?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

This is just me, but we all hate free riders right? Illegals with free tuition, welfare abusers etc. This is just another form of it, because in a right to Work state if you work in a Union shop and you don't have to join you still reap the collective bargaining rewards that the other are paying for. Raises, vacation and sick time,bonuses and anything else that union dues are paying for to be bargained you also get, a free ride.

The comparison to illegals and welfare abusers is a false correlation. Right to workers are not illegal and they are not on welfare. They are just as legal as union workers and work for their pay as do union workers. Their relation is with the company, not the union and the company does not give them a free ride. They must, at a minimum, meet company standards or they can be fired more easily, as JohnnyD pointed out, than union workers. And the company is not obligated to pay them as much as union workers, neither is the company forbidden to pay them higher, as JohnnyD also pointed out. The union might well put up a big stink if they were paid higher. And the union would also not like it if they were given less in pay and benefits since that would encourage the company even more strongly to replace union workers with non-union workers. So the easiest way would be to pay them the same.

My major objection to collective bargaining as it is enforced by government is that it violates the Constitutional freedom of association granted to individuals. The power that unions have was granted by FDR's creation of the National Labor Relations Board and the FDR Court's acceptance of it on purely political rather than constitutional grounds; and that board's decision to favor unions by granting them the right to bargain through enforced collectives, violating individual's rights to bargain for themselves (free association). The employer's rights of association are also violated not only because he cannot bargain with individual workers according to their individual merit, he is not allowed to associate with other similar employers to form a collective resistance to union demands, while workers can be represented by large national or international unions.

It would be more equitable and reasonable if collective bargaining was between the company and those employees who chose to form an inter-company union. There would be no outside influence by representatives who have broader concerns than those most "fair" and profitable to the company and its employees. These would be voluntary unions which would not force those who didn't want to join to be part of their negotiations. As it is now, the deck is stacked and individual freedoms are abridged.

My union dues are less than $20 a week, a small price to pay for the security of a good stable job with a good wage, and great benefits.

Are you certain that your job security is a result of your union? Doesn't that depend more on the viability and profitability of your employer and his business? A substantial amount of money is collected nationwide as union dues--are you satisfied with how they are politically distributed? You seem to be not only satisfied with your union, it seems that you would rather have it than not. Wouldn't it be easy to convince others to join?

As to the notion of "free riders", aren't there some union members who get a free ride when they aren't as productive as or more disruptive than most of their fellow workers, but get away with it by being protected by the union?