Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sixpence on October 15, 2004, 10:04:44 AM
-
Will it be legal for the NHL to lock out the players, or will they have a "right to work"?
-
Ah who cares if they get locked out. Hockey fans have a better substitute in a REAL sport from the WWF!
:p ;) :lol
-
Right to work does not mean that. It means you can not be forced to join a union.
-
sort of. it means (in an effort to break unions) they ban exclusive contracts on labor (no problem with them when used in other business though). they also require the same benefits be given to employees who refuse to support the very union that is bargaining for these wages. it allows the dim and short-sighted to choose not to fund the organization that is charged with enforcing their rights, while reaping the same benefits as those who pull their own weight.
-
Or, you could say it allows persons who do not beleive in the tyranny of Unions to work. That would be why it is called "right to work", not "union busting".
-
it allows the dim and short-sighted to choose not to fund the organization that is charged with enforcing their rights,
Hmmm... is that the same orginization that tells you who you are going to vote for?
Also is this the organization that ear marks a portion of your monthy dues for the political party of their choosing? (as long as its not republican)
Gee... sounds swell to me Wally.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Or, you could say it allows persons who do not beleive in the tyranny of Unions to work. That would be why it is called "right to work", not "union busting".
And why we call soldiers "peace keepers," too.... ignore the guns, Lizking. ;)
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Or, you could say it allows persons who do not beleive in the tyranny of Unions to work. That would be why it is called "right to work", not "union busting".
the name is nothing more than a cheap sales pitch. if it was really just about giving those who don't want to join the right to work, why do they also require that those who don't join be given the same pay/benefit package?
it's a way to kill the unions out. by giving new employees the ability to get all the benefits of union membership without paying their share, you force those who do join to pay an even larger share since they are also picking up the tab for the deadbeats getting a free ride.
exclusive supplier contracts are common in business. the fact that these 'right to work' states allow them in other issues but deny labor the right to exclusive contracts tells you the law is anti labor. they are limiting the rights of labor, not granting protection.
-
It is not anti-labor, it is anti jackbooted thuggery, otherwise known as unions.
-
Originally posted by VWE
Hmmm... is that the same orginization that tells you who you are going to vote for?
Also is this the organization that ear marks a portion of your monthy dues for the political party of their choosing? (as long as its not republican)
Gee... sounds swell to me Wally.
I've never been told how to vote (by my union anyway). the individual officers can and do make recommendations, and we publish a list of candidates and how their record looks on issues relating to labor law.
also it is illegal for your monthly dues (or your % dues) to be used for political purposes (though companies can use their share-holders profit for political purposes. yet another anti-labor regulation). political issues are paid for out of a separate account that is funded solely through voluntary contributions.
-
Actually, it should be called "Right to Fire" not "Right to Work". You can fire anybody for any reason, including you just don't like their looks. You may have to pay unemployment if the TWC rules, but you do not have to re-hire them.
Also, according to Texas law, professional atheletes are excluded from unemployment rights and benefits.
-
Hey Captn Apathy, I'm just getting you fired up. I don't like unions personally, but they are good for some industries.
-
what rpm said , you can be fired without cause and without notice. seen it happen, guy walks into work one morning 5 min late, boss (who dosn't like the guy) says "your fired".
(note to self) remember to take boss to lunch.
-
the way I see it is.... you shouldn't have join a union to work. You definitely should not be forced to contribute to candidates that you oppose moraly.
Unions give big money to candidates that are not good for America.
convesely.... Unions should be able to charge non union members for the cost of negotiation.
I would dump the unions in a perfect world and go with binding arbitration or interest based negotiation and each worker charged a percentage to pay for the negotiations and contractual costs.
Unions are corrupt and in the pockets of liberal socialist politicians and pad their own pockets with very little benifiet for the dollars they charge. They are a bad deal.
lazs
-
Arizona is a right to work state also.
Screw unions.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the way I see it is.... you shouldn't have join a union to work. You definitely should not be forced to contribute to candidates that you oppose moraly.
Unions give big money to candidates that are not good for America.
convesely.... Unions should be able to charge non union members for the cost of negotiation.
I would dump the unions in a perfect world and go with binding arbitration or interest based negotiation and each worker charged a percentage to pay for the negotiations and contractual costs.
Unions are corrupt and in the pockets of liberal socialist politicians and pad their own pockets with very little benifiet for the dollars they charge. They are a bad deal.
lazs
as I said before, political contributions come from a separate fund. the money in your general fund, political fund, H&W, pension, annuity, and training funds are not allowed to mix, separate accounts separate books, separate accountability. political funds are contributed to on a voluntary basis, any member can choose to opt-out. as a matter of fact you have to specifically opt-in to have the contribution deducted. if you give no specific approval then none of your contributions will find their way into the political fund.
unions are just what the name implies, the uniting of the workers. if your union is taking your money and working against your best interest, and you allow it, then it's your fault.
many people, and unfortunately many union members, have the mistaken idea that the union is some separate organization that handles the business between employees and employers. the truth is that the union is simply a group made up of employees who choose representatives to negotiate for them and administer the various funds and programs.
you are the union, and it is whatever you are willing to make of it.
-
so all the mailings I get all the time telling me to vote for this socialist or that is all paid for with voluntary contributions? Wow... they spend more money on this than on doing anything useful... I never even heard of anyone giving money to them voluntarily. Not one person I know has ever sent them an extra dime they didn't get extorted out of them.
Distastful as it is... I contribute to the union for the simple reason that I don''t feel it is fair for others to pay for the benifiets.
I still say we would be better off simply haveing a barganing group hired on.
lazs