- cross-posted to:
- workreform
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- workreform
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Right to work is just a slogan. Its “At will employment” Everyone has known since the beginning its true intent. Its why I have always heard it called the ‘right to fire’
I was so confused when I first heard about “at will employment” because the way they soften it up to sound like a positive thing also implies that there are places where you legally can’t quit your job. But they’re not trying to imply that; they’re merely dancing around the fact it means you can be fired without needing a reason. Which makes sense only if you think about whose will is being invoked.
It came about in this state when a major project was in the works. They passed those laws thinking they would wipe out unemployment in the state. After those suckers/fools/sell outs voted it in all the rat outfits came in with shiploads of their own rats from out of state. Sure they used a few scut work locals but they gutted the unions and pay fell. Same story different day. The irony is after the project neared completion those same rat companies had to hire union labor to fix all the fuck ups.
deleted by creator
They are two distinct things. Right to work is the right to work without being required to pay anything to a union. At will employment is the ability to fire you for any reason as long as it isn’t a reason related to be a protected class.
They are both one and the same in this state.
Your state has both of them. That doesn’t mean they are the same thing. My state is the same way, but the are still two different things
A point of difference that makes no difference. why obsess over such a trivial point? Especially when both are used in concert to subvert workers benefits and pay. Its almost like you support any kind argument to make people stray from the point.
Because only talking about one and thinking they are same thing ignores the other one and implies it isn’t a problem. It’s not pointless pedantry when they are distinct policies that are used to depress wages in different ways. Both should be eliminated and that’s why we should acknowledge both and recognize the differences between them.
Go away shill. I’ve already blocked you but I guess you are just around to sow disorder.
Who do you believe I am shilling for? I’m correcting your factual error while agreeing with you in principle that both are bad and used to depress wages and abuse workers. Why are you so upset?
Citizens United is actively damaging to the lives of regular citizens, brought to you by the same folks who used the PATRIOT act to snoop on every conversation and build secret dungeon prisons all over the world. These are also the same people who use the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as an example of socialism not working, it’s a conservative trait to fix proud sounding names to piles of horseshit and act like you’re wrong for reacting to the smell.
Universal basic income > right to work
B-but you can quit your job at any time!
And the only repercussion is adding more difficulty to an already arduous job search by having to explain why you did not list your previous employer as a reference.
Surely that privilege outweighs the tradeoff of allowing businesses to abuse and fire you whenever they feel like it for no reason at all and with no negative repercussion for them when doing so.
You’re thinking of at-will employment.
At-will: Able to quit/be fired without notice for any reason, other than membership in a protected class
Right to work: Able to work without joining a union
You probably aren’t intentionally doing it, but you are somewhat repeating a propaganda line from the anti-union side.
It is against federal law (Taft-hartley act) for a closed shop to exist, meaning that there is no state where you can be forced to join a union to work in a specific job.
This creates the “free-rider” problem where someone who doesn’t join the union still benefits from the collective bargaining. In states that don’t have right to work, the union can collect “agency fees” from those non-union employees to cover just the benefits that they are receiving, while giving nothing else to the union.
Right to work outlaws this practice, so that free-riders get the benefits of the union without any fees.
There is some disagreement between unions and the anti-union people on whether unions are required to provide “duty of fair representation” to non-members. It’s a mix of law, policy, and precedent, so it is a little unclear, but I would side with what the NLRB says on it.
Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not.
Some anti-union people advocate for changing that, which sounds good, but the actual effect would be that businesses would pay non-union members less, saving themselves money, so they would choose to only hire non-union employees.
You’re right, got wires mixed up.
I’d rather have a right to live than right to work.
Hey, it’s „right to work“, not „right to get a living wage“ /s
Ask how easy it is to get fired in a “right to work” state. They can do it for almost any reason at any time.
It’s a "right* for the employer to “work” the system.
“right to work” means the business reserves the right to fire you without any reason.
I’m starting to think that the patriot act wasn’t about being a patriot.
Of course not, it is about the employer’s right to take your work whenever they want for whatever compensation they deem acceptable.
I prefer the activist jargon of “free ride” states and “fair share” states. Your union fights for, represents, and supports everyone in a workplace. Don’t be a free loader.
I wish I could find a union job.
Such a thing is a myth in IT support jobs.
My dad many years ago was offered to join a union in his IT position. He thinks they are evil so he said no.
A lot of union contracts that I’ve seen, which admittedly, isn’t many, specifically exclude IT workers.
I’m guessing that your dad, and people like him, are no small part of why that is the case.
I don’t know much about RTW
From my understanding, not all unions benefit their members. Some just charge money and do nothing.
Why would someone want to be forced to join one?
Doesn’t it make more sense to have the freedom to choose if you want to be a part of one or not?
Like make a law that corporations have to have joinable unions available that are funded by the corporation.
The idea that someone pays dues in hopes of getting benefits is wild to me. They shouldn’t have to pay dues to make sure the business treats them fairly.
I’m from a union family and was in one myself for many years before I changed to a career path where it’s proven difficult to organize. You’re starting in a good place, but few points.
- The members are the ones who typically determine union leadership. If the union isn’t doing anything, it’s probably… at least partially the members fault. However, just like in the real world, the wants and needs of older members tend to dominate (as turnout of older members is generally higher) and that can leave newer members left out.
- You might not get everything, but you typically will benefit from most of the things the union fights for whether you’re in it or not, so for voluntary dues you end up in a situation where the smartest short term play is to not be in the union so that you can reap the rewards without having to contribute. However, this leads to the union not having the funds needed to fight for more things (because not enough are contributing).
- Having unions funded by the corporations directly is slippery… It’s like going to court and your lawyers are on the payroll for the other side. It creates an incentive to side with the people who are funding them.
You have to remember that… a business treating you fairly would ideally be the default, but there’s no reason they have to. Your union should be watching out for that for you so that you can focus on showing up and doing your job. The dues aren’t for “getting benefits”, you already deserve those and those already should be owed to you, the dues are for having someone to fight for you and advocate on the behalf of you and your colleagues.
There certainly are 3 kinds of unions.
-
The unions like in the past that were strong and fought tooth and nail for their workers, getting them what they need to live a good and happy life. There are a few of these left but not many.
-
The unions that let their older greedy members sell out their younger members with two tiers, one for the older members that has good wages and benefits while the lower tier has lower wages and shit benefits. There are many of these unions around now.
-
CLAC type unions that you pay dues but they always side with the company and fuck their members over because they just use their veneer of Christianity to not get questioned.
The biggest determinant of how a union is going to be is based on the membership and how many of the old guard at the top care about the younger members. I have been part of a union with many new guys that voted out the old guys because they were trying to protect themselves at our expense but we got concessions that helped everyone instead of tiered membership.
-
Not a new concept
Doesn’t need to be a new concept. Just needs to be said.
