Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheDeputy

(224 posts)
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 10:04 PM Sep 2013

Right to work. Please advise.

Ok, I am in a small, independent union. I love my union. However, we are not political at all, nor does my union educate us much. I have heard of right to work. On paper, it seems to offer a choice. However, I have heard also that it ends up being bad for the worker. We don't have it in Ohio, so I have no experience with it. What, exactly, is it. Basically, I am asking how it would negatively impact local cops like me? Also, what impact would it have on a larger scale? If I read it correctly, it would allow people to get the benefits of membership without having to share the cost of membership. Is that right? Thanks to all who for your help.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Right to work. Please advise. (Original Post) TheDeputy Sep 2013 OP
Read all about it here - lots to digest NRaleighLiberal Sep 2013 #1
it's the "Right To Work For Less" Skittles Sep 2013 #2
^^^ This Guy ^^^ +1000 FreakinDJ Sep 2013 #7
In a nutshell, it means that unions can negotiate on wages/benefits but all workers get MillennialDem Sep 2013 #3
THANK YOU! TheDeputy Sep 2013 #5
It's bad for the worker because it's a tool to prevent unionization Warpy Sep 2013 #4
We don't have it in Ohio? If it is up to Gov. Kasich we doc03 Sep 2013 #6
I lived and worked in Arizona back SheilaT Sep 2013 #8

Skittles

(169,214 posts)
2. it's the "Right To Work For Less"
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 10:08 PM
Sep 2013

it is anti-worker garbage, designed to kill unions / collective bargaining

 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
7. ^^^ This Guy ^^^ +1000
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 11:41 PM
Sep 2013

They went into Texas and sold the Right to Work bill to the Black and Hispanic community saying "You all are going to have jobs"

It didn't improve the employment picture in those communities, and it lowered wages for all workers

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
3. In a nutshell, it means that unions can negotiate on wages/benefits but all workers get
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 10:11 PM
Sep 2013

said wages and benefits whether they pay union dues or not.

Since there is no benefit to an individual paying dues (see prisoner's dilemma), the union dies off.

Warpy

(114,361 posts)
4. It's bad for the worker because it's a tool to prevent unionization
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 10:12 PM
Sep 2013

having only part of a shop belonging to a union removes a lot of the leverage that union has to bargain for better working conditions or pay.

States with those laws typically have worse working conditions, markedly lower pay, more worker injury on the job, and generally an anti labor climate. Workers can be fired for any flimsy reason at all and even a union that covers a large majority of the other workers is not in a position to contest it.

People call those laws "right to starve" laws because that is the effect they have on the workforce.

I've belonged to good unions and bad unions and a bad union is much better than no union. You can take that to the bank. Literally.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
8. I lived and worked in Arizona back
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:25 PM
Sep 2013

when it was one of only two states that were "Right to Work". I don't recall what the other one was.

But I did know that pay in Arizona was less than in other parts of the country. That's what Right to Work means. 40 years of demonizing unions has paid off.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Right to work. Please adv...