The Eight Lies Behind The Republican Push For Right To Work Laws

What recourse do voters have if they were lied to and politicians push through bills with noble names but without noble intentions?

Do you mean names like the Affordable Care Act?

The affordable care act which reduces the deficit? and forces people who have the means to pay for their own health care rather than abuse the emergency room? You mean that act that made sure sick babies were born covered and that people with preexisting conditions can actually lose their jobs without losing their lives? IS that the act you are comparing with this one, which will ensure the citizens of Indiana enjoy less take home pay which will ensure small businesses in Indiana less customers but dont worry I am sure the right will make up for it by giving the multi nationals a huge tax break.

That's exactly the one I'm referring to. If you want to call it the Citizen Insurance Requirement Act or the You Must Purchase Insurance Act or even just the Insurance Act, that would be fine. But it's the Affordable part that conforms to the question KeepFreePress raised. Because, from all indications, this will end up being anything but affordable.

Most of those people died in Auschwitz.

As is most of the middle class and labor in general in this country.

@Midnight: Am pleased that you got my point.

Right wingers say they dont want to pay for a unions despite taking the benefits from a union, because unions support ideals they dont agree with, right? Because otherwise you are asking why you should pay taxes for the roads if you dont want to, when you drive down them every day. So am I close?

But you also dont have to take a job at a business with a union right?

I mean I hear from the right, that we can vote with our feet and we can choose to not work at places that dont offer health care, or safety equipment and things like that, how come the door does not swing both ways? Shouldnt you be able to vote with your feet and simply not work at a place that has a union?

Well if you come back that it is unfair and all the good jobs are unions controlled(notice they dont seem to have a problem with unions for professionals, like doctors unions, or sports unions which are also forced). Then the door should also swing both ways. See why as an employee of a corp should I be forced to support a republican PAC? You say it doesnt come out of my pay, but it does come out of my labor.

Sorry the "I dont want to be forced to pay for the benefits I receive due to a union" is a weak argument when the right constantly tell us we can vote with our feet when it comes to just about everything, including jobs.

It means a union and an employer can't mutually agree that it will be one of several types of union shops. This then allows the employer to break the union by offering union +$1 wages for employees who don't join the union, and then when they've hired enough employees to break the unions bargaining power they summarily reduce wages and benefits for everyone. It completely eviscerates the unions ability to function.

Employers are not forced to sign contracts with unions if they don't want a closed shop or fair share arrangement, they do so because their workers have organized and put pressure on them to do so. This will make group bargaining increasingly difficult and the unions will be gone inside ten years unless the employer wants one.

"But you also dont have to take a job at a business with a union right"

No I don't. But if that business is hiring and I'm capable of filling the position I should be able to do so without joining a union. The company isn't union, the employees are. There's a big difference and the company can't force me to be or not be union only the union has the power to force people to join and pay.

If I go to work for a company that has a union representing employees, does this law say I can't negotiate on my own behalf for my own wages and benefits? Does the law stipulate that all employees of the company will get the same benefits? I don't need a union to negotiate for me. Does this law say that a company has to pay union wage and benefits to a non union employee? I didn't see that anywhere.

So again, I'd have to ask, what's the problem. Unions are scared of this because now they will have to justify themselves to the workers or they stand to lose members. If you think the union is of benefit to you, Great! by all means stay a part of the union. If not it should be your option to leave the union and maintain your job with the company.

Andrew,

If the Union can prove itself valuable to an employee why wouldn't the employee join that union once he or she is employed and has seen the value of representation. You'd have to be thick headed to see the value and not take part in it. If the person doesn't see the value of the union, then it should be up to that person not to join the union.

"Right wingers say they dont want to pay for a unions despite taking the benefits from a union, because unions support ideals they dont agree with, right? Because otherwise you are asking why you should pay taxes for the roads if you dont want to, when you drive down them every day. So am I close?"

No, you're not even remotely close. I use the roads and see value in having good roads to drive on and safe bridges to drive on.... It's not hard to see the real value so I don't mind paying. A union needs to prove it is valuable and once I see that value, I'd be glad to pay in.

If the Union can prove itself valuable to an employee why wouldn't the employee join that union once he or she is employed and has seen the value of representation.

The value comes when the employer eliminates benefits and reduces wages. However by the time they do that the employer will have broken the union using the leverage they're now guaranteed through right to work.

The worker will suffer because of this.

Andrew,

How does the employer get leverage through right to work? They hire an employee, that employee starts working and either sees or does not see the value of the union. The emloyee then either decides to join the union or not. The company can't force the employee not to join the union because of this law.

If the worker is a WORKER, then they will be fine. I have a relative who worked at Parker. Parker moved the line they worked on to Mexico. Parker let go of most of those on the line but because my relative had been a good worker, Parker kept them on in another postion. If you work, people will notice and treat you accordingly. Maybe not always but I feel in most cases this is true.

The company can't force the employee not to join the union because of this law.

The company can easily break the union by offering a few dollars more to entice new workers to stay out of the union, and then when the unions bargaining power is diminished they eliminate benefits. The remaining workers without the legal power or collective bargaining ability of the union are forced to bend over and take it. This is bad for employees and will result in reduced wages and benefits.

So paying above union wages is a bad thing?

So paying above union wages is a bad thing?

That lasts only until the union is broken. After that, historically wages and benefits go down and there is nothing workers can do about it. The Economic Policy Institute did a study last February showing that RTW states have lower wages, less benefits and less pensions all of which leads to more poor and more sick who then use more of said state's taxpayer money to subsidize them thus requiring the federal government to subsidize the state. Thus we all pay for it.

GOP - Race to the bottom (of wages and benefits). Decimating the middle class one state at a time.

Shouldnt you be able to vote with your feet and simply not work at a place that has a union?

Well if you need a job you should have to pay to get one. What you are saying is that if you don't want to pay just walk away. Are you serious?

Andrew,

"The company can easily break the union by offering a few dollars more to entice new workers to stay out of the union, and then when the unions bargaining power is diminished they eliminate benefits. The remaining workers without the legal power or collective bargaining ability of the union are forced to bend over and take it."

OR, they could decide to organize and bring the union back in which would help prove the value of the union. I highly doubt what you think could happen actually would happen since once again, this law doesn't stop unions it just makes being part of one optional. What incentive would a company have to drive workers into the arms of a union once they've driven them out?

OR, they could decide to organize and bring the union back in which would help prove the value of the union.

After the fact they have neither the legal power, finances, or collective cohesion to stand up to the employer. With no agreements with the employees in place the employer simply hires enough temporary workers to mitigate whatever small contingent of the employees decide to do something after the fact. Further, with out people out their fighting for your wages and benefits every week, it's easy to lose track of the fact that your benefits are slowly being diminished, the new hire wages are a few cents less an hour, and the 401K matching has disappeared.

As others have mentioned, the fact that right to work states have demonstrably lower wages makes it pretty clear the effects this type of legislation has.

The concept is real simple isn't it.

to benefit workers, like the article says germany is a good example.

never heard of john nash, i will check him out, sounds like he has been silenced for a reason. :)

Republicans are living the dream or were and want to again.

Democrats watch the dream on TV. (Star Trek)

Doesn't John Stewart always say "I want my jet pack" "Where is my flying car"

(this is supposed to be humor)

Republicans are living the dream or were and want to again.

Hardly, the vast majority live trailers and are too stupid to realize that their continued support of republicans is what is keeping them there.

When it is really means lower salaries and wages, but hey, don't look past the word "freedom" to see what will really happen. I hear teapubs yammering on and on about "freedom, liberty, patriot", and then they go and do the exact opposite instead.

Is there an actual study that shows that employers lowered wages when a state became right to work?

Impacts of “Right to Work:” Comparisons of Social and Economic Well-Being
Governmental studies show that workers who belong to unions receive better wages, benefits, and working
conditions than non-union workers.8 In addition, the standards attained in labor/management agreements
also help to improve the wages, benefits and working conditions of non-union employees, by raising the
state’s overall average weekly wage and benefit levels. Over time, a right-to-work law is likely to
undermine these wage and benefit gains, and prevent adequate representation for workers.
It is also important to compare the social and economic well-being of families and workers in right-to-work
states, versus states which allow employers and unions to negotiate their own contracts freely. There are a
number of ways in which states are different on these issues (see Table One). This table shows the median
weekly earnings, average annual pay, median income, and poverty rates for each state, and then calculates
the average of these numbers for all right-to-work states, compared to all free-bargaining states.
First, the differences in worker pay levels between free-bargaining states and right-to-work states are quite
evident. In 2009, the median weekly earnings of full-time workers in free-bargaining states ($771) was
13.4 percent higher, on average, than for workers in right-to-work states ($680).9 Similarly, the average
annual pay for workers in all industries was 14.1 percent higher in free-bargaining states ($44,707) than
in right-to-work states ($39,169).10
Household income figures show a similar contrast between these two groups of states. Among freebargaining
states, the median household income for 2009 ($52,513) was again 13.4 percent higher for
“free bargaining” states (on the average) than for right-to-work states ($46,328).

http://umaine.edu/ble/files/2011/01/RighttoWork_Laws.pdf

It is the RIGHT-TO-FIRE for any or no reason at all.

Or quit. You are paid for service. On payday you and the company settle up. Now you are both even neither owes the other anything. Except what is required by law.

NC Slim

You think employers cannot fire you? Really? If they are smart they will not give you a reason.

11.1 & 11.2

The RIGHT-TO-FIRE laws are supported by the same 1% that offshored American jobs. They want you to work for peanuts while they stash their profits in other countries without paying for the use of taxpayers’ resources, roads, infrastructure and more

Under the right-to-fire measure--your boss can:

• Cut your wages
• Fire you for complaining about unsafe working conditions
• Demand you work weekends
• Hire children to do your job
• Kill your health care plan
• Deny you medical or family leave
• Eliminate your pension altogether
• Disallow grievance procedures
• Move the company to another state or offshore the biz with little or no notice

This right-to-fire measure is about the rabid right-wing GOPers doing away with the middle class that supports the Democrats. This is about turning America into a single party system--a dictatorship.

RTW states have the lowest wage, least benefits, least pensions, most poor, and most injured on the job. They also thus suck off the government teat more and we all pay for that.

One absolute truth is that innocent workers are forced to pay dues to a union that then spends their hard earned dollars supporting Democratic candidates that support abortion.

Completely untrue in a fair share shop since in a fair-share agreement the dues you pay are specifically earmarked for legal arbitration, not for political lobbying which only comes only from union members dues.

My goodness Ian-2690048, you just described Texas and you are right!!!!

texasguy

WOW, shocker that a legally operating political party would get supported, and OMG a LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED AND PROTECTED medical procedure would be part of it too. OMG THE SHAME.

So if as an employee of a company, that company donates to causes that I find offensive? you think that is any bloody different?

If you want to get rid of union political contributions, just ban ALL virtual person contributions, but no, the GOP doesn't want that, they only want to get rid of that which they do not benefit from.

The key is to listen to what they say and assume the truth is the opposite. They bank on the fact morons will listen to what they say but not watch what they do.

Republicans have been selling us out for years--sending our jobs over seas

That would be Republicans like Steve Jobs?

I has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat - it has to do with business.

Morons do listen and believe what they want even when it's proven to be lies -- those are the folks who makes it hard for us honest folks to survive in this corrupt society. Action speaks louder than words and these Republicans politicians have showed us where their priorities are and if any of us thinks they even consider us in their 'take over the world plan' -- think again. Romnuts said he doesn't focus on the poor but if needed he'll fix it. What is he thinking: maybe sending poor people to their own little islands or god forbid... Watch these people carefully -- something strange is brewing and it's not a pretty picture...

JC -- call it what you like!

Linda sorry to say even on Progressive radio this morning they knew it was a Gaff they chided him for it but even they understood what he meant do you not understand such a simple thing? And Im no Mitt fan at all.

David -- keep watching!

Secondly, if you're not a member your dues don't go politicians.

FACT: CA, according to their State Controller..will be broke mid-March. They are bankrupt. Once again the banks will not honor CA State Tax Refunds...because the state cannot cover it...no money...broke....

Yeah, but there economy is still by far the largest in the U.S. The fact that their state government is in the red is a completely separate issue. Despite right to work and high pay the state economy rakes in $1.9 trillion a year.

Plus CA does not allow tips to be figured toward the min wage.

Right you are. But you are also not entiltled to tip income.

That's impossible IV.... with all of those super-rich Hollywood stars, they should have plenty of money..... I'm certain they all pay as much tax as they possibly can (they probably even pay more than 15% on their long-term capital gains, just so they can pay their "fair share")..... surely they can't all be like Snipes.....

And minimum wage has what to do with RTW now? Oh, nothing, I forgot.

Secondly, California's problems have nothing to do with RTW. It has to due with the ridiculous tax loopholes they have that allow their giant tech and entertainment companies pay squat for taxes. FACT: California's budget is $86 billion. Their economy is $1.9 trillion. 57 Fortune 500 companies are headquartered their yet though they making tens of billions in profits few are paying taxes in CA. Worse, many are actually getting refunds. Giants like Apple and Intel move their investment branches out of the country and because of our ridiculous tax system they get away with it.

CA is also going to have to unfortunately give up on the massive amount of free tuition to state colleges they give out and other social aid to make ends meet.

So, anyway, can we stick to the topic at hand?

It has to due with the ridiculous tax loopholes they have that allow their giant tech and entertainment companies pay squat for taxes.

Nonsense..they spend more money than they take in...Fed can get away with that..States cannot.

That and less union members equals less union dues equals less money for the democratic party. I suspect that is on their minds a lot more than they would ever care to admit.

That is all that is on their mind.

The only true rationale for the Republican push to right to work for less laws is that fact they can get people to work for less.

I will ask again....is there a link that shows that employers lowered wages once the state became a RTW state?

Independent,

There is a trend towards lower wages overall, so it is difficult to tell, however the states that have right to work laws generally have lower wages overall.

I am not really sure though other than Indiana this year what states have adopted right to work laws recently to even be able to try to measure it.

Jonathan,

Do you know if there is any correlation between the wage levels and the cost of living? It may be that the reason wages are higher is because the cost of living is higher in those states. I honestly don't know, one way or another, but I do know that neither NY or CA are RTW states but they certainly have a higher cost of living index than states like AZ.

Right-to-work laws: supporting the company instead of the worker. Lower wages, fewer benefits, and fewer rights, what more can businesses want. The sad thing is that so many people seem to be more interested in the opposite.

Right-to-work laws: supporting the company instead of the worker.

They provide protections for workers. Nothing in there for the company.

Do you have anything against every worker being able to choose whether a union is right for them or not?

Do you have anything against every worker being able to choose whether a union is right for them or not?

Most if not all know when they apply for a job whether the company's workers are represented by a union. At that time they can make the decision whether they want to work at that facility. Forcing unions to represent non-members is just plain wrong.

Unions are not forced to represent anyone. This law allows people to choose to join a union or choose not to join a union, and be protected either way.

Before RTW, you could lose your job not just simply for not joining a union, but even for joining the wrong union.

I'm Ringo.

You honestly don't know how unions work, so you probably should just keep quiet before you get schooled.

This comment alone:

Before RTW, you could lose your job not just simply for not joining a union, but even for joining the wrong union.

indicates just how little you really know.

Hmmm, so Jonathan has nothing to actually contribute to the topic.

You honestly don't know how unions work

Wow, someone using the word honestly while they are being dishonest. I'm sorry that you are that clueless about the topic.

ringo,

no I have a lot to contribute to the topic, but considering that you are a person that really can't bother with logic and truth, and instead rely only on ideological bull@!$%#, I really honestly can't be bothered. Personally explaining something to my cat is more productive than having a conversation with you.

And NO, I am not clueless about the topic. My company is unionized, I have to deal with union laws in the conduct of my business. If you think that makes me clueless, then I guess Stephen Hawking is clueless about the theory of relativity.

no I have a lot to contribute to the topic

Oh, so you made a conscious decision to not contribute.

but considering that you are a person that really can't bother with logic and truth

Sorry jonathan, but your trolling does not count as contribution.

You got it right the first time, I have mad e a conscious decision not to engage in anything remotely considered discourse with you because it is basically about as productive as telling my cat what to do, or talking to a brick wall. If you want to call it trolling, then report me, I don't care. As for wasting my time talking to someone that has no interest in anything other than ideological claptrap (and I say this to those on both the extreme right and the extreme left), I can't be bothered, because it is a waste of my time.

I have mad e a conscious decision not to engage in anything remotely considered discourse

And your decision to troll instead of discuss is solely your fault.

I guess I just don't understand why people come to discussion sites to NOT discuss.

Why do you come to discussion sites to not discuss and just spew ideological crap and not actually listen to what people say and to spew lie after lie after lie. Answer that one and maybe that will glean why I choose not to continue.

You are going on ignore now (where I thought you were in the first place, I think NV is having ignore list issues).

Why do you come to discussion sites to not discuss and just spew ideological crap and not actually listen to what people say and to spew lie after lie after lie.

Your question makes no more sense than if I asked you why you're a member of the KKK.

You are going on ignore now

Then I will gladly enjoy the end of your attempts to troll me. Bye

Unions are not forced to represent anyone.

"Right to work for less" laws say unions must represent all eligible employees, whether they pay dues or not. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues money to provide union benefits to free riders who are not willing to pay their fair share.

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work/

say unions must represent all eligible employees, whether they pay dues or not

Maybe you should go read Indiana's right to work bill