Republicans Want To Pass A National Right-To-Work Law

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jun 18, 2010
17,116
1,877
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#1
From article Trump said: “I love the right to work. It is better for the people. You are not paying the big fees to the unions.” But the truth is under Right to Work, you pay absolutely nothing to the union, if you don't see fit to do so. If enough workers do the same thing, the union won't last long. Right to Work works best for the good of the company, so it won't have to put up any more with the presence of a union. However, having Right to Work has historically been effective in keeping unions out as well proven when Mercury Marine in Stillwater could never get unionized despite efforts. So the proposed bill may not get as much support as hoped.

Republicans Want To Pass A National Right-To-Work Law
House Republicans plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would institute right-to-work policies in the entire country if it became law, delivering a severe blow to the labor movement.

Right-to-work laws give workers the option to stop supporting unions while still enjoying the benefits of representation. There’s nothing new about such proposals being made in Washington ― what’s different now is the political climate, which should alarm labor unions and their allies.

Republicans who back such laws control both chambers of Congress and the White House for the first time in years. Meanwhile, more and more states under GOP control continue to pass their own right-to-work measures, increasingly making them the norm rather than the exception.

Republicans and business groups would still face a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. But they have all the momentum on this issue, and there’s no reason to think that will change anytime soon.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a sponsor of the legislation, said as much in a note to reporters Tuesday.

“Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but we believe that this year, the legislation could garner more support than ever before,” Leacy Burke wrote.

Under U.S. labor law, a union must represent all the employees in a workplace it has unionized, even those who may not want to be in a union. Unions argue that it’s only fair for all workers to contribute money to help cover the costs of bargaining.

But right-to-work laws make such arrangements illegal, allowing workers to opt out of paying fees to a union that will have to represent them anyway. Unions call the phenomenon “free riding.” Supporters of right-to-work laws argue that no worker should be required to support a union, regardless of whether it bargains on his behalf.

Republican lawmakers and business groups have had startling success with right-to-work legislation in the last few years. Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky have all gone right-to-work since 2012; in Kentucky, it was essentially the first order of business last month when the GOP assumed full control of the statehouse for the first time in nearly a century.

Twenty-seven states are now right-to-work, and Missouri and New Hampshire could soon follow suit. Union-dense, Democratic-leaning states on the coasts are highly unlikely to pass their own right-to-work laws, but a federal statute could take care of that for them. The passage of national a right-to-work bill would make it the law of the land in all states, regardless of their own statutes.

A Democratic filibuster is currently the only sure firewall against a federal right-to-work law. Although President Donald Trump has tried to play nice with certain unions, he voiced support for such policies while on the campaign trail.

I love the right to work,” he said last February. “It is better for the people. You are not paying the big fees to the unions.”

Even if Democrats can beat back such proposals in Congress, right-to-work may spread anyway thanks to the Supreme Court. Unions narrowly dodged a bullet last year when the case known as Friedrichs died with a split decision following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. A conservative majority could have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of public school teachers in California who argued that workers in public-sector unions should not be required to pay any union fees.

A ruling against unions would effectively make the entire public sector right-to-work throughout the country, regardless of state laws. Although they did not success with Friedrichs, right-to-work backers plan to try again once a solid conservative majority is in place on the Supreme Court.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,972
16,944
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#2
While I would like to see something done to make sure workers have the right to choose (you might say I’m pro-choice when it comes to workers rights), the limited government conservative in me knows that this should be a state issue and that the Feds have no business messing with it.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,835
2,828
743
33
#4
There is no reason for this, unions are dead due to being obsolete.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,835
2,828
743
33
#7
I don't have any experience with Unions, but from what I know I'm all for getting rid of them.
The way you get rid of unions is to treat workers well, they become obsolete and workers walk away on their own, i am for right to work because it furthers that process, but a national one is just going to drive the union martyrdom narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jun 18, 2010
17,116
1,877
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#9
Right-to-work could easily be titled a civil right.
No, unionized workers already have the civil right to vote to kick the union out to get relief from being required to pay union dues in states without Right to Work. So I think most conservatives would say school choice should be called the civil rights issue of the 21st century, not Right to Work. Conservatives insist parents should have the right to be granted public tax money when needed to send their children to the religious, otherwise private or public schools of their choice.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,200
940
743
Edmond
#10
No, unionized workers already have the civil right to vote to kick the union out to get relief from being required to pay union dues in states without Right to Work. So I think most conservatives would say school choice should be called the civil rights issue of the 21st century, not Right to Work. Conservatives insist parents should have the right to be granted public tax money when needed to send their children to the religious, otherwise private or public schools of their choice.
So this went from unions to schools awfully quick. You have a problem with the schools we get that.
 
Mar 11, 2006
2,886
1,880
1,743
#11
No, unionized workers already have the civil right to vote to kick the union out to get relief from being required to pay union dues in states without Right to Work. So I think most conservatives would say school choice should be called the civil rights issue of the 21st century, not Right to Work. Conservatives insist parents should have the right to be granted public tax money when needed to send their children to the religious, otherwise private or public schools of their choice.
Are you denying the fact there are some jobs that require joining a union or have required this in the past? And that union agreements with business make it impossible or very improbable to negotiate individually?
 
Jun 18, 2010
17,116
1,877
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#12
Are you denying the fact there are some jobs that require joining a union or have required this in the past? And that union agreements with business make it impossible or very improbable to negotiate individually?
Federal law since the 1940s makes it unlawful to become a union member, in order to secure a job. That is an undeniable fact. When confronted about it in the past, former Gov. Keating admitted it's true. You are confused with how unions, where there is no Right to Work, can legally deduct money from all worker paychecks, whether they wanted to sign up to be a union member, or not.

If a worker thinks it can only be in his or her own best interest to negotiate wages and benefits with the employer, why be stupid enough to join a unionized workforce?