Michigan........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS

There IS QUITE a difference between states with higher union representation and those with less, RTW notwithstanding.

Compare median income. Maybe it's just me but I think good wages are a GOOD thing.

Compare tax contribution vs. tax distribution ... (those graphics Henry V provided a while back). The states with the lowest union representation (and the lowest wages) are, in general, the states that TAKE more from the government than they CONTRIBUTE. If I lived in one of those states on the other end of the spectrum ... like WASHINGTON ;-) ... I think I would be wondering if MY share of the load would be lightened a little if some of those other states DID pay more union wages.

Drive through some of those states and you will see more pawn shops and "pay-day loan" signs in one block than I see in my whole town.

JS

---

All I'm saying is there is enough data to make the argument either way, State by State, city by city pick your poison we can all find examples to defend our cases. I live in a non-RTW state unemployment is 5.8% I'm fine with that considering how the rest of the Country is doing. Can Unions be a job killer? Yes. Can you negotiate a better wage with one? Probably. Pros and Minuses that is all. Not a case where either side can say bang headshot. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HPL

I might almost acknowledge your point IF unions limited themselves to negotiating with employers and weren't politically active, but since individual members don't get to specify how their monies are distributed to the various political parties, candidates, and causes, afraid I simply can't agree. If the unions would distribute their political contributions proportional to he leanings of individual members (which wouldn't be that difficult), then, again, I could almost go with your statement, but................

---

The whole philosophy of collective bargaining is based on that simple concept ... that the group's strength comes from acting as a united body. The members DO have a say in those political decisions and the majority decision determines the action. There will always be those who disagree, but the decisions are made to benefit the body as a whole.

Unlike a company or corporation you may work for ... what say do the employees have in the political actions of the corporate PAC???

What say do you have in a government's decision to go to war???

Etc., etc., etc.

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franco

Not down here!;-) The Oil Field has always refused to talk with unions and neither does the Medical Industry in this part of the world.

---

But what does a company's attitude regarding organizing have to do with RTW?

If the employees in a bargaining unit organize and are recognized by the NLRB, law requires the company to negotiate. Now the success of those negotiations is between the company and the union, but the right to work laws have no impact on anything until a contract agreement is reached.

Labor law then requires that EVERYONE in that bargaining unit has the same contractual benefits whether one belongs to the union or not. In a RTW state, someone can "freeload" and in a non-RTW state everyone must pay their share. This has no impact on the company at all.

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by road kill

Then why have a union at all?

---

So that folks like you that don't want to pay dues and have leverage against your employer...will earn a livable wage.

All the oil refineries and chemical plants here are union and TX is a RTW state...go figure....must be they like have an employee agency with the union. I'm sure EXXON could bust them if they wanted to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS

But what does a company's attitude regarding organizing have to do with RTW?

If the employees in a bargaining unit organize and are recognized by the NLRB, law requires the company to negotiate. Now the success of those negotiations is between the company and the union, but the right to work laws have no impact on anything until a contract agreement is reached.

Labor law then requires that EVERYONE in that bargaining unit has the same contractual benefits whether one belongs to the union or not. In a RTW state, someone can "freeload" and in a non-RTW state everyone must pay their share. This has no impact on the company at all.

JS

---

Because businesses do NOT want to relocate to states where unions impede their productivity. Why do you suppose that worker union states are known as the rust belt whereas Right To Work States are attracting businesses and growing job opportunites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franco

Because businesses do NOT want to relocate to states where unions impede their productivity. Why do you suppose that worker union states are known as the rust belt whereas Right To Work States are attracting businesses and growing job opportunites?

---

Wow lived in the rust belt all my life and never had a clue it had anything to do with RTW, learn something new everyday. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franco

Because businesses do NOT want to relocate to states where unions impede their productivity. Why do you suppose that worker union states are known as the rust belt whereas Right To Work States are attracting businesses and growing job opportunites?

---

But Franco, my point is that the RTW status of a particular state does not give a union an advantage in organizing a company's workers. It simply requires everyone who works under a union contract to join their union and pay the dues.

If Louisiana became non-RTW tomorrow, there would be no difference on the burden of any company, union or not.

Maybe we should just apply the RTW philosophy to the country as a whole, and I could just decide to quit paying taxes. You might be on to something here. :p

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menmon

So that folks like you that don't want to pay dues and have leverage against your employer...will earn a livable wage.

All the oil refineries and chemical plants here are union and TX is a RTW state...go figure....must be they like have an employee agency with the union. I'm sure EXXON could bust them if they wanted to

---

Hey, you are ass-u-me-ing again!!

I get paid when I make something happen!!!
I'm as independent as it gets...........

"Nothing happens until the sale is made!!!":cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS

But Franco, my point is that the RTW status of a particular state does not give a union an advantage in organizing a company's workers. It simply requires everyone who works under a union contract to join their union and pay the dues.
You must mean in a non-RTW state. In RTW states, workers are free.

If Louisiana became non-RTW tomorrow, there would be no difference on the burden of any company, union or not.
Yes there would. It is because we have a lack of unions that our workers enjoy high wages and benefits. If we had uniuons, we wouldn't have the industy infastructure here. It would be located ina RTW state or offshore. Unions impede productivity. Why do you suppose businesses are recluntant to build or expand in non-RTW states?

Maybe we should just apply the RTW philosophy to the country as a whole, and I could just decide to quit paying taxes. You might be on to something here. :p

I'm all for workers not paying Federal Taxes that our government just waste. And yes, we would all be better off if this country was RTW!

JS

---

My comments in red.

Franco, would you please explain what you think the Right-to-Work law entails?

Thank you.

JS