"Right-To-Work (for less)" legislation is pure ... SOCIALISM!

[zbdent]

I just realized ... the "Right-To-Work (for less)" legislation actually leads to one BIG thing that Republicans use to promote fear: SOCIALISM!

Just like when the people who fight against Social Security and Medicare take the benefits when it comes time for them to collect, then those who support "Right-To-Work (for less)" legislation will take the benefits of the union WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT.

Republicans/conservatives are against giving health care for free, but if they succeed in taking the "mandate" out for people to pay SOMETHING for the health care, then when they need health care, they will get it WITHOUT PAYING A DIME!

[PETRUS]

1. Yes

And it also denies people "freedom of contract," which flies in the face of right-wing ideology as well.

[kctim]

2. Um, no

People who fight against Social Security and Medicare are mandated by government to pay into them and are collecting on something they already paid into and promised a return on. The fact that it is a mandated government program and is not voluntary is why they say it is socialism.

People who support RTW are saying they are choosing not to benefit from the union. In order to say they are getting union benefits without paying for them, you must prove they wanted or even considered them benefits, or that they could not have gotten the benefits on their own. The fact that workers have no choice in being union or not is why they say it is socialism.

People who are against so-called "free" health care, are against it because it will require a government mandate in order to be feasible. A government mandate means no choice in the plan or even if they want health care insurance or not. If they succeed in taking out the mandate, they will still buy their own insurance and will not be getting it without paying for it. Because it is a government mandate, there is no choice and that is why they call it socialism.

Like it or not, in todays political sphere, socialism is defined as government forcing people to support things against their will.

[PETRUS]

3. Mandates

Unions are legally required to represent all members of a bargaining unit - meaning they must be compensated with the same wages and benefits and are entitled to union protection in the event of a dispute. RTW legislation does not seeking to change that mandate, so it is false to assert that RTW supporters are seeking to opt out of union benefits.

[kctim]

6. Interesting

How are non-members considered members of the bargaining unit?

The unions would be dumb to not fight to change that.

[PETRUS]

7. Good question.

Just a guess, but it seems possible that unions could be further weakened without those requirements. That is, owners/management could treat nonmembers better in order to break the union. Maybe that's a stretch, I don't know.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I'm pro-union and anti-mandate but I'm not understanding the argument

If someone is forced to take something they do not want they're somehow socialist for also not wanting to pay for it? It seems the cure would be to leave them to their own devises not force them into schemes and then play silly rhetorical games.

I personally do not like the idea of being forced to buy health insurance, fattening corporate executive paychecks so they can dispense fewer services at higher costs because the government has DICTATED I give them my money and by law I have no place else to take my business. How that makes me a socialist, I do not know.

[zbdent]

5. If they manage to keep people from having to pay something for the health care ...

and then they use the "free" health care ...

that would be "socialism" by Repug standards.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. But they don't want the so-called "free" health care

and it's not like they'll have a chance to go somewhere else. I, for one, agree with their outrage. I have no desire to use a system that legally mandates a corporate monopoly. Read the history of monopolies: it's never pretty.

And you better believe it won't be "free." You will pay for it with lower wages and higher pass-through costs. You don't think the insurance CEOs are taking a pay-cut, do you? They'll jack costs on your employer and everyone else's. So now your boss will pay you less or reduce any wage increases you might have gotten. Then, when you go out to spend your stunted paycheck on your family you'll see prices are higher as the other companies react just the same. And none of these employers can look for competitively priced plans because the insurance CEOs told congress to not only impose the mandate but to standardize coverages so your choice is A: Vanilla or B: Neopolitan minus the chocolate and strawberry.

Where are people who don't like this scheme supposed to go? It's not hypocrisy to cry foul against this kind of abject cronyism. If someone in your family is sick it does no good to leave them untreated out of some moralist hissy fit. It certainly isn't hypocrisy. I read about a lot of bad cops and want to see things changed but guess who I'm calling if there's a burglar in my house.

And don't you think we'll ever get single-payer now that mandated corporatist monopolies have corralled us into subsidizing their lobbying slush funds. And definitely don't kid yourself into thinking congress will throw away those profit-funded campaign checks.

[Romulox]

9. DUers LOOOVE Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais. All made in "Right to Work" states.

So what's the problem?