The big thing about RTW is that employees who choose not join the Union or pay dues still receive all the benefits of the Union members. The contract covers all employees whether they pay dues or not.

 

Freeloader fallacy. It allows employees to negotiate their own contracts.

In 1947, the National Labor Relations Act was amended to expressly protect the right of workers to not join a union. Specifically, Section 7 of the NLRA expressly states that employees shall have the right to refrain from joining a union.

 

You still have to pay dues. What's the difference.

On Fox's 'The Five' today token liberal Becket was calling the non-Union people scabs, and saying they were getting the benefits without the dues. He also took a good shot a southern states where RTW is prevalent.

 

He kept bring up the 'blood' given for worker rights. And while there has been terrible union-busting violence decades ago I could not find any recent serious company on union violence in the US. The murder of a coal miner in WV in 1990 that was covered up - with the help of the UAW - seemed to be the most recent case. I would assume there are others. But they do not jump out.

 

Has any of the current generation ever really fought and sacrificed like workers did between the 1920s to the 1950s?

In 1947, the National Labor Relations Act was amended to expressly protect the right of workers to not join a union. Specifically, Section 7 of the NLRA expressly states that employees shall have the right to refrain from joining a union.

 

However, if they join a company where the workers are represented by a union...within the collective bargaining agreement, the union can require...and I will quote from my company's CBA:

 

"All probationary employees and all new employees hired into the bargaining unit after the signing of this Agreement shall, at the completion of thirty-one (31) days of employment, apply for membership in the Union and thereafter remain a member in good standing for the duration of this Agreement".

 

SO...in a non-RTW state like Kentucky, if a union represents either all or part of the workforce, the union, in the CBA can require ALL covered employees to be members of the union. And once a company is represented, all the governmental balance is in support of the Union. The union has spent their campaign funds wisely.

BTW I brought up this topic to the Kentucky Cabinet of Economic development a couple of years ago, and I got a quick rebuff "that will never fly at the legislative or Governor's level".

 

Then, don't count on bringing in many more large manufacturing entities.

What are the pros and cons of not joining the union?

Pros are that you can take less money to do the same job? Not have to pay dues out of your paycheck.

 

Cons? Be treated with disdain by fellow employees who are full fledged union member? Really that's it, right? You still get the protection of the union in termination policies and benefits?

I still find the logic of unions for public entities difficult to grasp.

 

If in the private sector a Unions role is counter balance the greedy company owner(s) or their 'management'. Who is the 'enemy' in the public sector the management is elected officials. The 'owners' are the people.

 

If a Union is trying to counter act the decisions of duly elected officials of the people does that make the union treasonous? Or their acts those of sedition?

 

BTW, I do believe in the right to Unionize. It would come under the Constitutional protection of the right to assemble and freedom of association.

Had a couple of my uncles up there participating in the protests. Both are retired. 1 uncle was a teacher in Michigan and the other a former arbitrator for UAW so they are pretty hard core.

Hope they're not this hard core. Class acts.

 

Michigan locals raise funds for 'hotdog guy' after union protesters destroy his supplies | Fox News

These people are ridiculous. Every American has the right to labor for whoever they want to for whatever price they are willing to labor for. Who are these people to tell someone different?

Hope they're not this hard core. Class acts.

 

Michigan locals raise funds for 'hotdog guy' after union protesters destroy his supplies | Fox News

No, they were not involved in the fiasco.

No, they were not involved in the fiasco.

 

:thumb: BTW, anybody seen PP92? :sssh:

 

Seriously, I know it was a very few doing this but they've just given their opponents a tremendous amount of ammunition.

These people are ridiculous. Every American has the right to labor for whoever they want to for whatever price they are willing to labor for. Who are these people to tell someone different?

 

Who were they, the Obama liberals who in their mind are allowed to do whatever, especially when they have the media to back them up.

I still find the logic of unions for public entities difficult to grasp.

 

If in the private sector a Unions role is counter balance the greedy company owner(s) or their 'management'. Who is the 'enemy' in the public sector the management is elected officials. The 'owners' are the people.

 

If a Union is trying to counter act the decisions of duly elected officials of the people does that make the union treasonous? Or their acts those of sedition?

 

BTW, I do believe in the right to Unionize. It would come under the Constitutional protection of the right to assemble and freedom of association.

 

This is dead on!

Curious that these union thugs aren't getting negatively labeled by the media (or even on here) like the Tea Party did...