Right to work is law!

[littletommy]

I am a proud union member that gets paid a honest wage and has learned a skill to support my family with. I did not have a option to get a higher education due to finances with my family. I now have a 1yr. old son that I will be able to put through collage because I make good money because the union negotiates with the company I work for to keep my pay current with cost of living. Without union jobs you have no job security and no training unless you have a collage education which cost go up every year. So I am happy to be a union employed person that has job security without collage debt like most of the higher educated americans.

As I have said previously, I work for a non union company, and I make very good money. My company spends a lot to train employees in specific skills because they want the best workers they can get, which seems to me would be a no brainer for any company. About a year and a half ago, we were really slow, slow to the point of everyone worrying about the near future. A few guys did loose their jobs, but they were guys who weren't productive employees any way. We spent two or three months sweeping floors, cleaning equipment, painting. All the while we were thinking the company could not keep paying us for much longer without money coming in. Nobody has had a raise for almost two years. I can say with confidence that if we'd had a union demanding more money from the company, I would have been, at the least, laid off, and not making near the amount of money I have continued to bring home throughout the slow times.

I'm glad there was nobody making demands on "my behalf", we are now busier than ever, and are getting reviews and raises next week.

 

[Hotdoger]

I am a proud union member that gets paid a honest wage and has learned a skill to support my family with. I did not have a option to get a higher education due to finances with my family. I now have a 1yr. old son that I will be able to put through collage because I make good money because the union negotiates with the company I work for to keep my pay current with cost of living. Without union jobs you have no job security and no training unless you have a collage education which cost go up every year. So I am happy to be a union employed person that has job security without collage debt like most of the higher educated americans.

I see that you have didn't address the fact that you could do all that with out the union and thier funding of leftists and still take home more than you do everyweek.

Both my older daughters went to college graduated with honors .One is a CPA and the other is an RN. Both with almost no loans . I didn't and don't need a union to hlep me suceed in my and my families lives.

BTW I don't have a college degree , have no debt but a small amount on my home. Drive nice vehicles paid for with cash. We buy everthing we want and take vacations with cash and have several investments for retirement and we have health insurance.

 

[hornadylnl]

LittleTommy,

My company was in the exact same boat as you were. They laid a bunch off in my department by seniority and I was the low man left for quite some time. I don't know if I just happened to be the last man above an arbitrary number or if they got to me and decided to keep me.

All of my working life, I've despised bureaucracy. I was an infantryman in the army and I despised the support units. Any time I needed something done, it was a hassle. Do you have the right paper work, is it in triplicate, are all the i's dotted and t's crossed, we only do this between the hours of such and such, etc.

90% of my aggrevation of my current job comes not from fixing things, it's the bureaucracy of getting the job done. I worked production for 6 years before going in to maintenance so I remember what it's like trying to get the job done. I see the big picture. I don't have a direct hand in producing the product but I know my purpose is to ensure that product goes out the door. If it doesn't, there's no money to pay me.

When something breaks down, production is supposed to call in to dispatch so they can create a work order and send me out to fix it. If I need parts, I need the work order number to sign them out of inventory. That whole process is 1000% more difficult than it needs to be. Most maintenance guys won't work on something unless it's called in. My line will call me over the radio to come fix something and my bosses will get crappy with them and demand they call it in. Either way, the equipment is still broke and it needs fixed. It seems as though some hope that by making them call it in, they won't bother and just deal with it resulting in less work for the maintenance guy.

I start work at 6 am and usually walk in about 20-30 minutes early. I don't know how many times I've fixed stuff in those 20-30 minutes while off the clock. Almost nobody else would do that. What good does it do to wait til 6 because the job will still be there when I clock in.

I couldn't handle working in a skilled trade in a union shop. If I had to wait around on another trade to do his part (even though I know how to do it) so I could do mine, I'd lose my mind.

 

[bianjd]

I am not a union member that is lazy or thinks that unions should rule the world but I am a person that has found success in being a union employed person and I am happy to represent them. I know there are people that take the free ride train and for someone like me who strives to be the best at what I do it is bothersome but not all union members are as people descibe.
back to school... don't judge a book by its cover
(Bobzilla) in your opion I may be wrong but from my experiences I am in the right place for success and a good secure job so YOU ARE WRONG and if you want to make a statement like that please explain why you feel that way

 

[bobzilla]

You blatantly said that without a union, no one can have job security, on the job training and good pay/benefits. You're wrong. Flat out, wrong. A good friend of mine who occasionally frequents this forum has a GED, did not graduate college and is making REALLY good money in a non-union job. He's making almost twice what I am making. Now, I am not complaining about my pay because I am good at my job and have a great company and boss behind me.

 

[dross]

The other night, they had some tooling issues on a press and couldn't find a bolt to put it all back together and left it for me. I'm the only one that came up with the idea to take the bolt out of the tooling for the other side and switch it back and forth to keep the line running while we got a new bolt made. We lost some production due to the time it took to switch back and forth but had I not done that, they must likely would have shut the line down and lost the entire shift's production. It took 4 hours into my shift to get the bolt.
.

This little story illustrates a very important point. You understand what your job is, and it's not to fix things. It's to produce a product. (Whatever product your company produces.) An employee-thinking worker would shrug, complain about management, say, "What can I do? It's their job to get me the part."

One of the things unique to the U.S. military that has done more to make us the greatest fighting force than any other thing, is that for a long time, way before it was done anywhere else or even in the private sector, is that everyone knows the mission, and everyone is responsible for the mission. In other armies, the private soldier didn't know anthing about what was going on. In our Army you're taught that the senior man takes over, even if you're senior by one day, and drives on towards the mission.

Unfortunately, in the private sector you have a lot of people who don't understand how what they do affects their company's goals. They think they repair things and they don't understand that what they really do is sell soap.

I had a roomate once who jumped all over a telemarketer and cussed them up one side and down the other. I reminded him that his company uses telemarketers. His livliehood depended on the sales those guys made. He thought he was above all that because he was a technician, not a filthy telemarketer. He'd cuss the poor guy who called HIM, but happily spend the dollars that other telemarketers had earned.

It is clear why you've done well, and like many important things, is easy to understand, but it takes character to live up to. Just be happy so few people are willing to do it.

My wife and I talk about how we'll teach our little girl. Both of us are the type of people who have always done well at any job we're at, whether it was me washing dishes, or her making beds in a hotel. We want to pass on to our daughter that what makes life so easy is that most people aren't willing to take pride and do that little bit of extra. Show up a little early, stay a little late, do something extra. Don't complain. Don't worry about someone else getting better treatment. Forget the word "fair." Pretty soon you'll be the one everyone else is claiming gets the favorable treatment, and you will be.

This is the most insidious aspect of unions. They actively encourage no one to stand out. They don't want employees competing with each other as they try to sell their individual labor. That screws up the whole thing.

 

[threefiftyfour]

Dross, first off, your avatar kinda freaks me out. That being said, nearly every post of your's that I have found, are similar to the last post on this thread, very well thought out, intelligent, honest, and as far as I can tell, completely right. I want to thank you for taking the time you do to write the way you do, and don't worry about how to teach your daughter. She will learn everything she needs by watching you and your wife.

 

[Hotdoger]

A majority of union dues support gun banning politicans, thus the hostility toward union members as funders of the antis should be easy to understand.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Sure, let's settle for 89% freedom.

Uh...we're not really guaranteed freedom to work for someone w/out being subject to the contracts they've voluntarily entered into...

Your freedom is that you can take a job elsewhere or start your own business. You don't have a right to work at factory X w/out abiding by factory X's contract obligations.

 

[bianjd]

(Bobzilla) yes YOU ARE RIGHT I did say without union membership you dont get those things and thats WRONG OF ME TO SAY because I believe hard work can give you job security and all the other benefits of a good job I guess what I was tring to say is I like the benefits I get through the union it has helped me to have a better oppurtunity in life. I dont agree with all that is involed politics, laws, policies but I do agree with some of the good things and I feel they help alot of good people

 

[dross]

Uh...we're not really guaranteed freedom to work for someone w/out being subject to the contracts they've voluntarily entered into...

Your freedom is that you can take a job elsewhere or start your own business. You don't have a right to work at factory X w/out abiding by factory X's contract obligations.

Agreed. As long as it's the employer's requirement. When the law prevents you from negotiating with your worker's individually, or requires you to negotiate with the union, the contract is not entirely voluntary. The law forces the employer to enter the negotiation process at a disadvantage.

Get the law out of it and then I've got no objections to any deal the unions can get, and no problem if an employee is required to join a union, or pay dues. No problem at all. Just remove the coercive power of men with guns and it's all good.

 

[88GT]

I am the one who put this in terms of money.

Okay, then why did you jump my case? You created a framework of judgement based on the COST of the endeavor. That was your complaint. The next logical step is to develop a threshold price point below which is acceptable to spend on procuring freedom for the people and above which freedom is too costly. You created the standard. I was simply responding to it.

And why did you have to resort to the ridiculous straw man accusing me of advocating greater and greater spending because I called you out on your premises?

I agree this is a legitimate use of legislature.

Then why the tirade that it was done incorrectly? Perhaps assuming that the alternative for which there is no provision would be cheaper?

But I am a realist.

And you think I am not?

We can go back and fourth on this all day but I believe when the smoke clears RTW in Indiana will end up like it has in Wisconsin and Ohio.

Which is......?

This is all about the money. I think we can agree to disagree but at the end of the day it will be we the taxpayers who will ultimately lose.

Who benefits financially? And please explain, in detail, how the taxpayer loses? How is the expansion of freedom a loss?

And I stand on my point that this legislation is not worth the taxpayer cost.

Aaaaaaaand we're back to my original point: you have put a price on freedom. This statement is the functional equivalent of saying that freedom wasn't worth the price we paid. So I ask again: how much is freedom worth?

I didn't see long lines of non union workers applying to get union jobs before this legislation was put on the table. This won't bring jobs to this state. RTW can't compete with foreign trade agreement labor. And the truth is there aren't that many union jobs left. Time will tell. If this is that important to Hoosiers, why was it not presented as a state constitutional amendment? Didn't we put property tax cap amendment on the ballot? Did we complain about that here?

That's right. What you saw was a bunch of people who wanted a job.

I am a proud union member that gets paid a honest wage and has learned a skill to support my family with. I did not have a option to get a higher education due to finances with my family. I now have a 1yr. old son that I will be able to put through collage because I make good money because the union negotiates with the company I work for to keep my pay current with cost of living. Without union jobs you have no job security and no training unless you have a collage education which cost go up every year. So I am happy to be a union employed person that has job security without collage debt like most of the higher educated americans.

Little tidbit: it isn't an honest wage if it was extorted.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Agreed. As long as it's the employer's requirement. When the law prevents you from negotiating with your worker's individually, or requires you to negotiate with the union, the contract is not entirely voluntary. The law forces the employer to enter the negotiation process at a disadvantage.

Get the law out of it and then I've got no objections to any deal the unions can get, and no problem if an employee is required to join a union, or pay dues. No problem at all. Just remove the coercive power of men with guns and it's all good.

Please forgive my ignorance, but in which circumstances might someone be held to obligations they didn't agree to? I don't come from a union family & don't have a clue what you're talking about. AFAIK, if I want a job at a shop where the owners agreed to contract all labor from a union, but I don't wish to join that union, I simply take my skills down the road to another shop.

 

[dross]

Please forgive my ignorance, but in which circumstances might someone be held to obligations they didn't agree to? I don't come from a union family & don't have a clue what you're talking about. AFAIK, if I want a job at a shop where the owners agreed to contract all labor from a union, but I don't wish to join that union, I simply take my skills down the road to another shop.

The owners are coerced into bargaining with the union by federal law. They can't say, "Take a hike, we're not going to bargain with a union." That's against the law. They also can't tell their employees certain things leading up to a union vote, even if those things are true.

So yes, they may sign a contract, and technically they may have a choice in that contract, but it's kind of like saying you have a choice not to give your wallet to a guy with a baseball bat. Sure, you can say no, so you have a choice, but you'll also get hit in the head.

The law gives unions a negotiating advantage. Therefore no agreement with a union is ever fully voluntary.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

The owners are coerced into bargaining with the union by federal law. They can't say, "Take a hike, we're not going to bargain with a union." That's against the law. They also can't tell their employees certain things leading up to a union vote, even if those things are true.

So yes, they may sign a contract, and technically they may have a choice in that contract, but it's kind of like saying you have a choice not to give your wallet to a guy with a baseball bat. Sure, you can say no, so you have a choice, but you'll also get hit in the head.

The law gives unions a negotiating advantage. Therefore no agreement with a union is ever fully voluntary.

Ah, thank you for the succinct explanation. I wasn't aware that the federal arm had the long latex glove on, regarding unions. I suppose I'm still principally against RTW because it nullifies contracts...but knowing, that those contracts involve federal muscle on the union side, does sway me toward believing that, among the current heap of legislation, RTW does manage to sway the needle back toward liberty.

I suppose federal union involvement isn't much different than the creation of LLCs... Unfortunately, the last time I grabbed my SKS & ran out into the cul-de-sac, it didn't appear it was yet time.

 

[dross]

Ah, thank you for the succinct explanation. I wasn't aware that the federal arm had the long latex glove on, regarding unions. I suppose I'm still principally against RTW because it nullifies contracts...but knowing, that those contracts involve federal muscle on the union side, does sway me toward believing that, among the current heap of legislation, RTW does manage to sway the needle back toward liberty.

I suppose federal union involvement isn't much different than the creation of LLCs... Unfortunately, the last time I grabbed my SKS & ran out into the cul-de-sac, it didn't appear it was yet time.

I'm aware of your views on corporate personhood and limite liability, and on that I know we disagree. Here's the difference, to me. The law might limit from whom you may sue for recompense in the case of a corporation, and while you may disagree, there's no coercion involved. I agree that the current state of the law does protect individuals who own corporations, but it doesn't force anyone to enter agreements with the corporation.

So, even if I agreed with your view on liability, I would still see the union issue as much more anti-freedom.

 

[edporch]

The owners are coerced into bargaining with the union by federal law. They can't say, "Take a hike, we're not going to bargain with a union." That's against the law. They also can't tell their employees certain things leading up to a union vote, even if those things are true.
-Snip-

Brought to us by the Wagner Act of 1935 which legalized coercive collective bargaining.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act


The Taft-Hartley act of 1947, allows among other things, Right-To-Work laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act


Personally, i'd like to see BOTH laws repealed.

 

[Son of Liberty]

The problem with right to work, is that it drives wages down, for non-union and union alike, if you look at every state that went right to work, the wages dropped dramatically. What I find funny is how people still support Daniels, even though he lied to everyone concerning 'right to work'. Politics as usual, I guess

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The problem with right to work, is that it drives wages down, for non-union and union alike, if you look at every state that went right to work, the wages dropped dramatically. What I find funny is how people still support Daniels, even though he lied to everyone concerning 'right to work'. Politics as usual, I guess

Evidence otherwise I call bull .

 

[littletommy]

Evidence otherwise I call bull .

The democrats said so. There's your evidence.