General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat "Right to Work" really means
Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)
First off, it's not "Right to Work". It's really not even "Right to Work for Less". The true description of these various laws is "The Unions are forced to represent workers who refuse to pay dues or an agency fee".
For instance, somebody gets hired at a good job at good wages. Let me use my little union as an example. Mutuel Clerks are part of the group I represent. Those are individuals that sell tickets to horse and dog racing patrons on races delivered to Boston from around the country (in the Summer, we have live racing). We have just completed a long and costly negotiation that increased our pay to nearly $20 an hour. In the other tracks in New England, the pay ranges from $12 and hour to about $16 an hour. Most other tracks have either non-union shops or in-house associations with no affiliation to an international Union or the AFL-CIO. We are a closed shop and affiliated with both the IBEW and the AFL-CIO. Under our law here in Massachusetts you have to pay union dues to work at a "union shop" and be a member of the union. However, if you put your request in writing with the employer, you can opt-out of the union by paying an agency fee, which amounts to about 80% of the union members' dues. You still are represented by the union, you remain on the seniority list in your rightful place, you bid for jobs in accordance with the contract and you enjoy the wages and benefits that the union negotiates with the company. What you give up is participating in union meetings or voting in union elections or voting on the contract itself.
As far as the argument that some union members do not like a union donating their dues' money to candidates they don't like, that doesn't happen. It's prohibited nationwide by federal law. What a union does is have a separate, voluntary payroll deduction from a union employee into a separate, segregated political fund (PAC). That money can only be donated if authorized by a majority vote of the union members (or in some cases, their elected union reps). Union Dues money can never, ever be used for political donations of any kind. No one is coerced to pay into this (PAC) fund and any member can bring any union or union official up on charges before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) even if he or she thinks this law has been violated.
What right to work laws do, is allow the employee to enjoy all the benefits I have outlined here as a non-union member, but that employee doesn't even have to pay an agency fee. Pretty soon, the union is defending that individual, or itself, if that individual wants to put forward "nuisance charges" against the union. Human nature being what it is, other employes decide "why should I pay dues to defend those who don't pay dues. I'll opt out, too. After all, I can use the extra $500 a year". Although that's short sighted, and as you can see, that $500 a year has brought each individual thousands of dollars in wages and benefits they would not have enjoyed otherwise, this has a continuing, negative affect on the union. Fewer people pay dues, the union has less resources but the same amount of responsibility, and the union ends up in a "death spiral".
What if you could enjoy all the security of being a US citizen. Our country was protected from invaders, our children still had to be educated, our roads were built, etc. Yet, if you decided to, you could opt-out of paying taxes. Sure, some folks would continue to pay taxes. But the same type of person who would opt-out of paying union dues would opt-out of paying taxes. Pretty soon, the rest of us feel like idiots, and there would be no federal, state or local treasury. And as a result, there would end up being no country. That's the closest analogy I can make to this outrage of forcing unions to provide services to employees for free, while they enjoy all the benefits that we provide.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laurian
(2,593 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Work for less is determined by minimum wage and NOT this stupid mis labeled "right to work" b.s. It's anti union period. That is all. It gives no one a right to work.
caraher
(6,278 posts)Yet I can easily see the same right wingers who think these "RTW" laws are a good idea also endorsing a proposal that, say, only people who voted for the winning candidates should be "forced" to pay taxes.
James48
(4,426 posts)I am in a bargaining unit in the federal government.
We work under "RTW" rules.
I have to represent 185 people in 22 different offices accros the country. We negotiate wages, along with all other conditions of employement. (Actually only a few parts of federal government can negotiate wages, and I am one of them).
I have SIXTEEN dues payers out of those 185 people. With those 16 dues payers (each who pay 1.25% of their wages in Union dues), I have to support arbitration cases (at about 8 to 10K a pop), along with travel and contract negotiations.
Needless to say, it is not easy.
forthemiddle
(1,375 posts)If those 22 offices got a chance to vote that they wanted to continue with union representation, would they?
Then everyone but the 16 payers are free loaders, but if they had a chance to vote to get out of the union, how are they "free loading"?
I am not part of a union, and no job that I have ever held had that option, so I am completely in the dark of the laws of unionization.
jschurchin
(1,456 posts)Yes.
The question is do they really want to do that? Here is why. Once you decertify you cannot vote again to be represented by another Union for a period of one year. Your employer can come to the employees the day after you vote to decertify and explain to you that wages have been cut by 25% and you no longer have any benefits. Do you know what your recourse is?
Well you can go on strike, but then your fired. Or you can petition the NLRB for unfair treatment, and we all know how lightning fast any government agency works, in the meantime big pay cut and no benefits.
People need to go back and study labor history. All of the hard fought wages and benefits enjoyed by the American workforce today is because they were forced from the business owners by organization.
Ask yourself, if you had all the power over your workforce, why would you give a shit about them. There are always more where they came from. Ask the Koch brothers. Think they give a shit about their employees?
forthemiddle
(1,375 posts)I agree with what you originally wrote, I just wasn't sure why the non paying members didn't vote to decertify, thanks for explaining.
James48
(4,426 posts)WE DID have a couple disgrunted people circulate a decertification petition, and yes, there was a VOTE.
And we WON the decertificaiton vote (Voted to STAY with UNion representation) by a margain of 95 to 21. (Total of 185 people, but only 116 people cast votes).
But only 16 dues payers. The other 79 freeloaders who voted to keep the Union , but not pay dues, wanted the benefits without having to pay a cent.
drm604
(16,230 posts)That boggles the mind. They have free representation and union level wages and benefits, yet they voted to decertify? 
D-Lee
(460 posts)It seems to me that this new post-election push for these laws is just another phase of the ultra-right's view that, as employers, they have a right to dictate how their employees vote in elections for public office.
It allows a clear identification of union supporters, likely those who will vote Democratic.
This is the push-back and revenge -- just another form of tampering with the right to vote freely and trying to control the ballot box.
Not Sure
(735 posts)Excellent comparison in your last paragraph.
Proud member BLET
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)That was an excellent summation. 
88mph
(18 posts)idk how they survive this mess with out protection.
nightscanner59
(802 posts)
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)
FiggyJay
(55 posts)for that excellent explanation! Republican euphemisms sometimes get really confusing.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
MrYikes
(720 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)ipfilter
(1,287 posts)the median for most workers.
The standard dues deduction is just about one and half percent of your yearly salary. So, dues collections go up as salaries increase.
A normal salary of $30,000 a year is $450 in dues. $40,000 is $600.
We have a lot of tipped employees, so the calculations vary. Our part-time workers' dues are as low as $200 in some cases. Our part-time workers may only work 7 months due to the seasonal nature of a racetrack. In our latest contract, we achieved time and a half for part-time workers on holidays, plus a raise of $1 an hour. That more than compensated for their entire yearly dues.
So, on average, a $500 figure is about what we do.
We also raise money for our political action committee through sales from union authorized vending machines at the facility. This is part of our agreement with the employer. We also use this money for hardship donations to our members (if someone is out sick for more than a month, we send $100 with a get well card), flowers for a deceased immediate family member and donations to various charities. The membership is about 150 and the vending machines bring in about $1,000 a month. We are just ending our year end reports this month and we made about $2,000 in political donations, not a dollar of which was from our dues account and every cent of it was approved in a membership meeting.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)I wish the media were as clear.
Rachel? Rachel?
louis c
(8,652 posts)but I'm starting to hear the tax payer analogy More and more in the MSM.
Last night Ed Schultz used it.
PrMaine
(39 posts)the right to freeload.
A short catchy phrase, not an essay, is needed if you want it to catch on.
ewagner
(18,964 posts)is exactly what this is designed to do...if Unions can be made irrelevant then they will become extinct......that's the goal of the Kochs and others like them.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Bosso 63
(992 posts)" Everybody's gone serfin'
Serfin' U.S.A."
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)The very phrase invites the perception that union members don't really work for their pay.
Unionizing should not be a right.
It should be recognized as a necessity.
In states where the shops are closed, it is.
I've seen a number of necessary things that the conservatives view in terms of rights.
For instance, getting education, in their view, should be a right, not viewed as a necessity for all people.
In the South, going to school is often viewed as an option, that there are plenty of things children should be doing outside of school that can be chosen to occupy their days.
How about clothing, housing and food?
In a conservative's eyes, these are options, things people choose to acquire or not.
They are not human needs at all.
After all, if we believed them to be human needs . . . then we would have to structure society such that they would be provided.
And, after all, "human needs" is just social science talk. Conservatives fear and despise nothing more than social science! Bwha-ha-ha!
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I really appreciate how simple and straightforward this post is. It was an amazing starting point for me.
http://www.fourfreedomsblog.com/Blog.php?Act=ViewBlogPost&BlogID=2206
THANK YOU!!!!
louis c
(8,652 posts)Thanks for the additional exposure.
I just jotted this thread down this morning before our regular E-Board meeting because I had a few extra minutes and the Michigan thing really pissed me off. I couldn't even watch MSNBC with Joe Scarborough spewing his anti-union bullshit, so I used DU as a therapeutic outlet.
I was pleasantly surprised at all the positive response, it is quite flattering. After all, an elected union official is a politician, too. I have to get elected every 3 years (I'm in my 4th term).
CrispyQ
(36,415 posts)And bookmarking.
locks
(2,012 posts)I just watched Martha Maccallum on "America's Newsroom" (FOXnews) wipe out the AFL-CIO spokesperson partly by talking over her and asking the same question about 10 times and answering it herself: What about freedom; why should a worker who does not like what the union is doing have to pay union dues? There are so many good reasons like the excellent post that can be succinctly expressed even on FOX that I was sorry that the union person did not answer the question and slap down Martha with them. Generally only on MSNBC do we hear reasonable arguments by union reps and state reps. But the people who need to hear the truth never watch MSNBC so the unions and their supporters need to use every chance they are given to get it out.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I guess not anymore. It's sad what happens to people when right wing news gets to them. She was in my sorority and I never would have imagined she would have turned out like this.
I'm disgusted by this and I hope someone smacks her down soon. I never would have thought she deseved it then, but after hearing this, I do now.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If unions had the "freedom" to refuse to represent employees who has the freedom not to pay dues then each would be on level ground.
In states where the "right to work" has been passed has not benefited from all the jobs and growth promoted by lobby groups making a living on promoting the right to work laws. Citizens loose and the states loose in less revenue because the companies does not flock to the states which has the right to work laws and if they do it is on low wages.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)for the representative work they do for all workers, union and non-union, at the site. That's freeloading -- enjoying the benefits of someone others work without paying for it. Workers don't have to join the union at their shop, but the courts said that unions could charge fees to non-union workers for the work of representing all workers, which was mandated by the courts.
The Unions need to work with George Lakoff to reframe this debate and begin engaging the public at large on the importance of unions and the reason why Right wing freeloader bills hurt all workers, union and nonunion.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)noun
...
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)As far as I know.
And STILL idiots say that they don't like their union.
When I tell them that it's THEIR union, and if they don't like it, they should do something to change it, they just sit on their ass, and say that they don't have the time.
standingtall
(2,785 posts)
ellenfl
(8,660 posts)it's not 'right to work'. it's 'right to fire', aka 'fire at will'. iow, all power is given to the employer, with little or no employee recourse.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)or else.
Thank you for this post.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)You can add in there words like 'Pro-Life' and 'Intelligent Design' to that list. Instead of saying 'we want to make women second class citizens' or 'make our children a bunch of dumbasses' they use these nicety words instead.
Sometimes they'll make up scary words to frighten us like 'Partial Birth Abortions'. Even though late term abortions were extremely rare and happened only when the mother's life was in danger or the fetus was stillborn, the GOP made it sound like any pregnant woman could walk into an a clinc at anytime during her pregnancy and get rid of the kid.
louis c
(8,652 posts)it's all in there.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)to the Koch Brothers..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021968101
http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/right-to-work
You Hate "Right To Work" Laws More Than You Know. Here's Why
......
Among Vance Muse’s “reactionary enterprises”: He lobbied against women’s suffrage, against the child-labor amendment, against the 8-hour workday, and in 1936, Muse engineered the first split in the South’s Democratic Party by peeling off the segregationists and racists from the New Deal party, a political maneuver that eventually led to Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and at last a Republican right-wing takeover of the South, and with it, the collapse of the old New Deal coalition. Which worked out fine for Vance Muse, since he was a covert Republican himself, serving “for years” as the Republican Party state treasurer in Texas.
That first attempt at splitting the Democratic party by peeling away the Southern segregationist-fascists took place in 1936, when Georgia’s brutal white supremacist governor, Eugene Talmadge, organized a “grassroots” convention with Vance Muse’s help. To stir up anti-FDR and anti-New Deal hate in the South, Vance Muse used photographs he acquired showing First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt being escorted by two African-American professors at Howard University. Muse used that photo to stir up the white supremacists in Georgia, he leaked it to as many newspapers as he could, and he even brandished it around a Senate hearing he was called before in 1936. Those hearings revealed that the anti-FDR “convention” that Vance Muse put on, through his “Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution”— which featured guests of honor like Gerald L K Smith, America’s leading anti-Semite and godfather to the modern American Nazi movement — was financed not only by Confederate sponsors like Texan Will Clayton, owner of the world’s largest cotton broker, but also reactionary northeast Republican money: the DuPont brothers, J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil, Alfred Sloan of General Motors... That unholy alliance of Northeastern and Confederate plutocrat money financed the first serious attempt at splitting the Southern Democrats off by exploiting white supremacism, all in order to break labor power and return to the world before the New Deal — and to the open shop.
The article is chocked full of useful information and well worth reading in its entirety.
I'll end this with a quote from Vance Muse the opens the linked article.
— Vance Muse, founder of the “right to work” anti-labor campaign
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Hey, Assholes,
If you union security clauses (which allow the collection of agency fees from non-members to prevent freeloading) must be negotiated by CONTRACT. They do not exist automatically in non-freeloader states. So if you are so supportive of "freedom" and "capitalism" why do you need a LAW to prohibit union security clauses in contracts? Why not give the union and the employer the freedom to hash it out at the bargaining table?
Sincerely,
Working Americans
Fucktards!
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)...they are forced to represent scabs.
nightscanner59
(802 posts)Oldtimeralso
(1,935 posts)I am a retired 40 year member of the IBEW and I still pay dues and contribute to the PAC fund. I grew up inion and worked union since I was 18. At various times I have served as Business Manager, President, Vice President, and E Board member. I cannot stand the idea of someone freeloading off the dues and work of others!
louis c
(8,652 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)
I have served as an E-Board member, Asst. Business Manager, President and Business Manager.
I serve on the AFL-CIO political committee in Greater Boston.
It is astounding how our message gets distorted. It's such a simple concept. If a majority of a group wants a union, they have a union established through free and fair elections. The unit chooses it's own leaders in a free and fair election. The minority who do not want to join the union can opt out and pay an agency fee for the salary and benefits provided by the union. If at any time, the majority of members feel that the union does not produce, they can decertify the union and go back to a non-union shop, again, by free and fair elections.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)Snyder: "This will bring more and better jobs to Michigan"...
Define "better", Governor. A job that pays half of what the job paid five years ago, and which has fewer benefits is hardly a better job.
tclambert
(11,084 posts)Why are you still bringing up Mitt Romney?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)On Tuesday morning they said that "right to work" laws make union membership voluntary. IT ALREADY IS VOLUNTARY!
I was pretty angry about that.
But Democrats/the left/progressives also suck at the language game. We have been accepting and using the right wing terms for so long that they seem the "correct" term now and the press refuses to change to "freeloader enabling" law, which is what it is. We MUST get better: "entitlements" are earned benefits, "union bosses" are worker representatives, and "job creators" are blood sucking leeches! (oops, did I just say that last one? 
)
ChillZilla
(56 posts)Now there's a can of worms to open up.
They_Live
(3,223 posts)here in Texas (a "right-to-work" state already, and very few Unions exist here), what it means is giving up your rights as a worker. You must sign an agreement when you are being hired which states that you can be fired at any time without reason.
Isn't that great? 
I screwed up one recent job interview by mentioning how ridiculous I think that law is, as I was signing the agreement on my application. The Employer looked at me and said, "but it's the LAW!"
I told him that understood that it is the law, but that I thought it was foolish to sign away all of your rights like that. I signed anyway, because you have to (to even be considered). The rest of the interview process had gone great, and I was qualified for the position, but I never got a call back.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)toby jo
(1,269 posts)of the dues-paying members back to them, instead of helping out everyone all the time. That might take a little edge off the situation. Maybe some re-eduation as to the beginnings on unions per a good little documentary. Get people fired up again.
I grew up union - GM. When strike time came around, and it came every 3 years, (GM, Ford, & Chrysler used to cycle the autoworkers union strikes), the word 'union' was kind of a holy utterance at home. Hope MI nails this bastard hard.
