Never thought USA Today, would publish an opinion piece like this


https://www.yahoo.com/news/pass-national-act-no-one-090005499.html

Drop in the bucket, but at least heading the right way.

Seems to me you exercise your so called "right" when you decide whether to take a job or NOT in a closed union shop.

The name of the "Right to Work" law is purposefully deceptive to make people think they are being denied the right to work which they are not...They make the free will choice to accept a union position at the inception, or take another non union job...Take it or leave it, nobody had their arm twisted.

What the law really should have been called is "Right to work for Less" or "Union Busting by Deception Law" or "Have my Cake & Eat it Too Law" or even "Koch Bro's Special Screw the Workers Law"

At least then it would have been honestly named, and a spade called a spade.

What about the employer's right to fire the lot of you commies.

That's called the SCAB, fire a commie for mommy law, Lol.

I still resent all the years I was forced to belong to a union to keep my state job. And thus forced to pay monies that "my" union just turned over to liberal Democrats who voted time and time again to take away my gun rights.

You would think that if unions were so terrific, workers wouldn't have to be FORCED to join them.

Pete

Pete did you refuse the raises the union negotiated for you?

Mr. Pete, With all due respect, you weren't forced to do anything...You wanted the money.

Thinking on the history of unions to today. Its a different matter depending where you end up. Most unions help as a small shield even today. They make it very hard to just get fired. Employers are given pause if they considering a mass hiring just to fire them in the end. Utah, where I live is a right to work state. But it is a right to fire state as well.
Unions even today are still a land mine set against that for employers.

Then you have examples like the union pacific. I have yet to get a wholly positive review of the management of them. The seem to just make themselves a private monopoly shielded by a union so that they fire their laborers for small matters. Recognizing their are alot of railroaders on here. I only post this after alot of feed back of previous employees of the pacific union. There are other examples. Some iron worker unions have driven their fellow workers to the bone for little reward of a union.

Its in this line of thought I simply point out. That unions are meant to protect the jobs of workers. In some cases they do in other cases they act like it at the recruiting end. Then stab you in the back. A harsh reality

I have no problem with workers refusing to pay Union dues my problem is they are awarded the Protections and Benefits of Union negotiations if you don't want to be Union fine STAND ALONE just don't expect everything someone else pays for

Any time money is involved there will be corruption. When unions were established they were much needed but the greed of the leaders led to where we are today.

Before coal miners unionized, some miners had to live in homes they rented from the mine owner, and were paid with "money that was only good at the company store that was owned by the mine owner.

It's not that bad anymore, but a union hating friend of mine worked many years for a company that rebuilt mining equipment. He was trusted to run the place when the brothers who owned it went on hunting trips and vacations. He spent about a year working with one of the owner's sons after he graduated college. One Friday he was told that he was no longer needed. Guess who filled his position.

Unions have there place. And they have done more for the standard of living in the US for blue collar workers than any other single factor. If you believe they have only benefited those who belong to a union, you are mistaken.

I agree Broom i'm saying anyone going to work in a shop and not pay dues should negotiate their own terms not expect to have everyone elses benefits for nothing

.

Exactly! Nobody is forced to work a union job. And there are plenty of non-union jobs one can work for the pay and bennies offered. Taking accepting the benefits negotiated by the union without paying your fair share makes one a parasite. Some unions will use none of the money collected from a member for political action if so directed.

Fair share provision—The employer may hire anyone regardless of their union membership status, and the employee need not join the union. However, all non-union employees must pay a fee (known as the "fair share fee") to the union to cover the costs of collective bargaining.

Union members ( independent contractors) collude to fix the price of their labor. It is illegal for licensed contractors to do this. Union members are a privileged class that need to buy politicians. keep paying those dues, to maintain your privileged status,

Not collusion - like Elton said in a song-"use a little muscle to get what you need"

EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that is part of national unions today is crooked. I can't believe people who claim to be gun owning, conservative trappers, don't mind supporting Nancy Pelosi's and AOC's re-election campaigns. How many union leaders have been indicted for racketeering in the last 50 years? Closed shop laws are just more proof they are all gangsters. If not for crooked gangsters how were union members exempted from looking for work when drawing unemployment? How can the union get away with kicking somebody out and stealing all their pension money for working a non union job? I can not understand why anybody would support that bunch of lazy do nothings known as national labor union organizers and leaders.

BOCO I happen to know a little about the teamsters. I have more respect for beggars.

"Collective Bargaining Is Price Fixing
12/13/2012 12:25 pm ET Updated Feb 12, 2013

When a group if businesses decides to “fix” their prices, that is not compete against each other, they violate the antitrust laws and the owners can end up in jail. When a group of workers do that by authorizing a labor union to bargain “collectively” with their employer over pay, they are fixing the price for their labor. But this is not an antitrust violation because Congress exempted labor unions from the reach of the law. Yet that doesn’t mean the workers and their union are not fixing their prices. They are agreeing on an hourly wage that is higher than the market wage for that labor. So if company A has been organized by a labor union, the union will no longer accept the wage the company was previously paying its workers, say $10/hour. It will demand significantly more, say $15/hour plus generous health and retirement benefits. Meanwhile Companies B and C, which are not unionized, and compete against Company A, will continue to pay their workers the market price of $10/hour.

We call this “collective bargaining.” That is a polite term for fixing the price of labor above what A would otherwise pay, the market price. It might be good for A’s workers, but only in the short-term. Company A cannot stay in business and pay above market wages. It will be forced to raise its prices in order to compete with B and C. But in a competitive market, A cannot raise prices without losing its customers to B and C. So A goes bankrupt. "

I thought the Teamsters where going broke, or maybe it was just the pension. Unions should be abolished for people employed by tax payers dollars.