General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
The Most Dishonest Words in American Politics: 'Right to Work'
http://www.alternet.org/labor/right-work-unions-collective-bargaining
''Right to work” is the most dishonest phrase in American political discourse. It sounds like it’s defending people’s right to earn a living. But as used by its supporters, it means making it impossible for workers to form an effective union, couched in the language of “freedom” and “choice.”
Specifically, it means laws banning “union shops,” in which everyone in a workplace has to join the union or pay a fee to cover the cost of union representation. Twenty-four states have such laws. All were in the South and West until last year, when Indiana and Michigan enacted them. Michigan’s law was rammed through the Republican-dominated legislature in a lame-duck session last December.
The Michigan law was “pretty devastating for the labor movement,” says Erin Johansson of American Rights at Work. It came in the state where the United Auto Workers’ six-week occupation of General Motors plants in Flint in 1937 won the victory that opened the doors for unions throughout American industry, the state whose union labor defined the working-class prosperity of World War II to the 1970s.
Both Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and Dick DeVos, the heir to the multibillion-dollar Amway fortune who bankrolled the campaign for the law, stuck to the party line about “freedom.” Snyder said the law would give workers “the freedom to choose” and unions “an opportunity to be more responsible to their workers,” because instead of automatically collecting dues, they’d have to show workers “a value proposition.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hamster
(101 posts)have higher poverty levels than free bargaining states, 36% more workplace injuries and higher levels of infant mortality rates.
raccoon
(31,119 posts)
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Misnomers can be a word or term used incorrectly; but when used repeatedly the intent of the user is obviously to deceive, to mislead ... To fool.
For years now, Republicans have been deliberately misnaming legislation with the intent of hoodwinking working class constituents into supporting bills that are contrary to their own best interests. The pattern is unmistakable. Below are just a few examples of misnomer (left and right) legislation.
Right to Work Act - work for less money
Taxpayer Relief Act - raised taxes
Affordable Health Care – costs more
Patriot Act - surrender your rights to fight those who hate us for our freedoms
Financial Services Modernization Act – modernization that brought our country a 1930’s style depression
Working Families Flexibility Act – gives employers the flexibility not to pay overtime
No Child Left Behind Act – designed to make every public school fail, but doesn’t apply to private schools
Citizens United – surely they jest
raccoon
(31,119 posts)
chervilant
(8,267 posts)an employer can fire you "for any reason or no reason at all." I discovered this when I was wrongfully terminated in December (the day before our Christmas break, which the POS who fired me visibly enjoyed) and called the Labor Board. The woman with whom I spoke said there was nothing they could do to help.
All of the hard won workers' rights our forbears fought -- and DIED -- for are being relentlessly dismantled by the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy.
Freddie
(9,273 posts)Is actually what that is (you can be fired for anything at any time). "Right to work" means no forced union dues which essentially de-fangs unions. Thank God not here in PA yet. I am a payroll admin for a school district and our teachers have to pay "fair share" (a portion of union dues) if they refuse to join the union; they also lose the right to personal representation if they have an employment issue. I think maybe 3 out of 500 teachers won't join. I hope they realize (although many of them are Repugs?!) that they can thank the union for their great pay and benefits (here in Philly burbs anyway). The best description I've heard of folks who won't join the union is "representation without taxation".
"Employment at will" (found in most states) means you can be fired for any reason except certain types of discrimination (race, age, gender--good luck proving it) and your only recourse is collecting unemployment.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)The Labor Board rep with whom I spoke specifically stated that we're in a "Right to Work" state, and "that means he can fire you for any reason or no reason at all." I wrote down what she said and repeated it back to her.
You may be correct (and that seems to be your motivation for responding to my post -- being correct, or 'correcting' me). However, these forms of legislation exist to delimit workers' rights, and to benefit the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)It also means you can quit for any reason at all, and no notice is required & it (theoretically) can't be held against you. That comes in handy when you work for a psychopathic asswipe like I did last year & need to bail before they push you too far.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Whatcha bet prospective employers WILL hold it against you if you quit without notice?
(BTW, the guy who fired me has a reputation among his peers, and it isn't pretty. He's a bad reflection on the state agency for which he 'works' -- even *that* is in question -- and dog help the families unfortunate enough to have to deal with his derision and incompetence.)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The law makes illegal certain provisions in collective bargaining agreements between the employer and the union. The provisions that are prohibited have no bearing on an employee's right to quit or on the consequences of quitting.
Suppose you apply for a job. The interviewer looks at your resume and says, "I see you left a job last year after only a month. What happened?" You explain about the psychopathic asswipe or not, as you choose, but the interviewer decides that your quitting shows instability and refuses to hire you on that basis. Holding it against you that way is perfectly legal, whether or not you're in a RTW state.
hamster
(101 posts)To quit when he/she wants to. They can't make you give a notice. That said, how does quitting affect unemployment insurance? If you quit, will it be denied?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)And in a lot of cases, you should be denied UI if you quit, since you had the opportunity to have a job.
There should be exceptions if your boss refuses to provide safe working conditions, etc, but if you quit just because your boss was an ass, I really wouldn't have a problem with somebody being denied UI.
hamster
(101 posts)In your haste to stick up for the corporate stooges who shit on workers, you didn't bother to find out?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I don't know which state they live in, and I don't know the policy of all 50 states.
I do know the policy of my state, but that is hardly any help.
Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)Or build up a record of trumped up violations of company policy on the employee's record until they feel safe in firing the worker. They show that record to the labor board when the worker files for unemployment and the worker gets turned down. You can appeal it but you would starve by the time a hearing was held on it.
The government looks out for the multi billion dollar corporation, not you.
And quitting without notice probably will be held against you if a prospective employer calls and talks to your old boss. It's especially bad in the trucking industry. They can put whatever they want on your record and make it damn near impossible to get hired anywhere else.
Freddie
(9,273 posts)I've heard the terms interchangeably but I've always thought that "right to work" (for less) was a union issue. They ought to change the other one to "right to get fired". You are correct that the fired employee has no rights or recourse unless they can prove certain forms of discrimination, and good luck with that.
One thing that scares me is ths growing trend of large companies to self-insure. What's keeping them from finding a trumped-up excuse to fire the worker with cancer or a sick spouse to keep their premiums lower? I know it happens.
Purplehazed
(179 posts)I witnessed employees terminated due to chronic conditions and injuries that happened out side of work. I was in management at the time. The message passed down from the corporate level was that these employees represented potential liabilities (read expenses) and paperwork was carefully crafted to terminate their employment. When I raised the issue that we were treading on the ADA, Iwas basically told STFU. My siding with the employees put me on the path to the unemployment line.
Freddie
(9,273 posts)Handle insurance claim info (we are self-insured as are many school districts) and theoretically no one here sees the actual claim info, just the $$ without names. I think if "upstairs" wanted to see that they could no problem.
I tend to side with employees too and I have to keep quiet about it.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)"Right to work" merely bans closed union shops. It has nothing to do with the right to collectively bargain or with at will.
hamster
(101 posts)They already have all the money. Now they want everything else. Private sector union numbers are whatt? 7% They want absolute rule and RTW helps them achieve that.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)All companies that do not operate under a collective bargaining agreement are "at will." This is regardless of what state you are in.
"At will" also means you have the right to leave your job for any reason.
"Right to work" merely refers to outlawing closed union shops. By making union membership optional, it cuts into their ability to be an effective voice for workers because there is less money going to them in dues.
Ain't nothing but the truth.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
byeya
(2,842 posts)In the 40s, Closed shops, which I prefer, I think were outlawed - a blow to the working class. It was the first step in the ongoing war against workplace democracy. 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act(1947 I'm thinking) has to be repealed in order for labor to regain its place as a positive force on the job. -
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Forcing someone to join a union is just as wrong as forcing someone not to join a union. I've worked in union shops and non-union shops and I got better pay and benefits in the non-union shops. Then I moved to field where there aren't any unions and got paid a lot better.
Every choice is a trade off of some sort. More protection, ifyou're senior, and maybe a union retirement plan. Less protection, maybe better up front pay, and these days a more personal 401K retirement plan at the non-union shop.
I have an uncle who was a union representative in a right to work state. He said that the big challenge was convincing employers and workers that unionization could work in their interest. He also stressed never ever threaten or lie to the workers or the employers, those are the fastest ways to get a union decertified by the workers in a right to work state.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)The CORRECT law would be to allow right to join or NOT join a union but the the non-union worker gets none of the protections of the union. Under right to work laws, the union still must protect the non-union member.
Of course no RWer supports that because it would strengthen unions.
As for better pay and benefits non-union, the statistics don't lie: union jobs overall are better. Does this mean every union job is better than every non-union job? Duh, of course not...
Freddie
(9,273 posts)But still the same pay, which was won by the hard work of the union. The "fair share" system we have in PA (school districts) seems right to me; those who refuse to join the union still have to pay in (but less than the members) because their wages and benefits came about thanks to the union. If they didn't have to pay anything they'd get "representation without taxation".
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)
Riley18
(1,127 posts)having to contribute a penny. Of course, they do not get legal representation if they are accused of something, but that does not seem to worry people who are for the most part extremely self-righteous individuals. At least that has been my experience as a steward.
Freddie
(9,273 posts)If it weren't for unions teachers would be making $10/hr.
My Dad, a retired teacher and strong union supporter, had a good theory about this. He taught back in the 50s and 60s when teachers made $4000 a year; we were pretty poor as kids. He said that the teaching profession saw a huge influx of men during the Vietnam War; go to college to get out of the draft, easy curriculum (back then), become a teacher. And those men were appalled to discover they'd be earning less than their buddies working in a factory. Wages that female teachers, accustomed to second-class treatment, put up with all those years. Thus the rise of the teachers unions.
Some teachers have no idea. One of them in my district, an outspoken Republican, came to my office the minute he could to add his 24-year-old son to his insurance because of "that Obama crap." It was *really* hard to stick to my no-politics-at-work policy!
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)... the shoulders of the unions whose pressure elsewhere led to their own decent pay and working conditions. They forget the struggles and think it can't happen all over again.
raccoon
(31,119 posts)helped by a union are vehemently anti-union.
byeya
(2,842 posts)organized workforce often makes the employer offer wages and benefits higher than he/she wants to. Take away the ability of unions to organize, the wages fall and benefits disappear.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)When they were allowed to ship our jobs overseas for the cheap labor, it was good night to manufacturing in America!
Kali
(55,019 posts)they are selfish, I-got-mine, assholes who have no appreciation for the struggle of others.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)...just aren't aware of the big picture or the history. Their first or second-hand experience with unions has been negative and they probably never even studied the labor movement in school. They're victims, in a way, and they'll continue to be victimized.
Kali
(55,019 posts)but you put it in much kinder terms. and you are correct - most likely the victimization continues for all.
raccoon
(31,119 posts)"Forcing someone to join a union is just as wrong as forcing someone not to join a union. "
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)to apply for a job at a union shop.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)
Highway61
(2,568 posts)Right to be screwed and right to be poor.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)
senseandsensibility
(17,130 posts)and intentionally banned from the corporate media that people are so ignorant as to fall for this garbage. 
Johonny
(20,888 posts)You might think right to work makes you free but there is always someone freer than you.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)that are just as oxyMORONIC (with the emphasis on MORONIC)...
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)The amazing labeling that the right wing does to disguise their agenda continues to amaze me, along with the propensity of their base to swallow this crap.
Johonny
(20,888 posts)they all sink to the bottom together.
think
(11,641 posts)Political double speak at it's finest....
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I used to have quite civilized and enlightening conversations with my libertarian neighbor (until I moved away). He was of course hostile to unions and generally in favor of individual rights (as he saw them).
One right that's important to libertarians is freedom of contract. Suppose an employer and a union, each acting freely in a free market with no governmental coercion, both agree to enter into a contract in which the employer will deduct from each worker's wages, and convey to the union, either union dues or a union agency fee. Each individual employee has the free and unfettered right to accept (or continue) employment on these terms or to quit. How could a libertarian object to that?
So-called "right to work" laws make it illegal for actors in the private sector to enter into such contracts, and thus constitute government impairment of the freedom of contract.
My libertarian friend, visibly unhappy, admitted this, but explained that there were larger issues involved. Without right-to-work laws, unions would exercise their economic power to obtain such agreements at many workplaces. Individual employees who wanted to work at a completely nonunion shop would find their choices restricted.
Of course, he was also against minimum-wage laws, because individuals should be free to choose to work for peanuts. In that context, I asked him about his defense of RTW: "So, there are some agreements that we can't allow people to enter into, because we look at the broader social impacts of allowing such agreements and we decide that the impacts are undesirable?" He understood perfectly well that his defense of "right-to-work" laws, which actually impair the right of contract, rested on an argument that was structurally similar to the one he rejected as to minimum-wage laws.
On my side, of course, there was no inconsistency; I see as beneficial the social consequences of the contracts that RTW prohibits, for reasons others in this thread have elaborated. Society benefits by allowing those agreements while prohibiting agreements to work for less than the minimum wage.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)and "Affordable Healthcare"
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)Without Unions, we are nothing more than wage slaves.
onethatcares
(16,184 posts)I did some carpentry work for a man that had every one of his fingers broken by the pinkertons or some such non union activists when he was signing people up for unions during the 40s.
I've never seen a pair of hands like that before or since.
It's not like companies hire folks to enforce "right to work" laws or people are standing up to say, "Hey, take away my vacations and time off, I dare you".
our country is fukking nuts, and the rich fuckkers play everyone against each other. Too many haven't learned that part of the game yet.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)for peanuts. Right to work for peanuts. 
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)If so many employers keeps paying their workers dismal wages, peopel will have less money to buy the businesses' products.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)hamster
(101 posts)Named Vance Muse. He didn't like the idea of blacks and whites working together. He also didn't much care for women voting, child labor laws or 8 hour days. Real piece of shit.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I have seen all three situations.
My neighbor recently lost his shit because his union that is basically invisible has for whatever reasons swung into action to try and make sure a maniac who followed a couple into a bar to assault them over a parking spot has a job to come back to when he gets out of jail.
hamster
(101 posts)Isn't in pristine condition, should you refuse to pay taxes?
Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)They can be sued for not representing a dues paying member.
Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)I know a number of states have passed, or are trying to pass, laws that prohibit the Union from negotiating an agreement where the employer has the responsibility of withholding dues money from the employee paychecks.
They are trying to make it as difficult as possible for Unions to get dues money, even from loyal members who are glad to pay dues.
One day things will get so bad we will rise again like our ancestors that built this country. Workers won't tolerate the low pay and oppressive work rules forever.
Amway doesn't have the ethical or moral authority to be in business. For more information visit my blog by googling "Stop The Amway Tool Scam Wordpress" and forward the blog link to every non-Distributor/IBO you know, so they don't get financially raped.
