Why? When Indiana went Right to Work, I haven't seen any cases of this. Why would it happen to your company?

 

I really wonder if Right to Work will really have the affect people think it will. Indiana's switch seems to have very minimal affect on workers.

 

Because when union workers leave the plant for whatever reason they will be replaced by people who won't join the union. They'll hire people off of the street to be mechanics, laborers, etc instead of those jobs being exclusively for union workers right now. They'll be able to hire entry level people for cheaper than what they currently pay incoming union employees because the union protects that wage. They can bring someone in for 15 bucks an hour to replace union workers and why wouldn't they? Not to mention our union is already weak for a variety of reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see 25-40% of my union leave the union if given the opportunity.

I don't have a problem with people not being forced into a union. I do have a problem with the union having to protect those employees who choose not to be in the union. From what I am reading unions are still required to protect those employees.

 

They are not protected as if a union rep has to defend them but if the union is smart they create a different classification of an employee to show the benefit. If the union negotiates a deal including non union workers thats on them.

Our union is going to cease to function as a result of Right to Work. It is inevitable. At some point folks will have to make a life changing decision. No one will want to be on the wrong side of the choice.

 

If the union has a benefit there will be no reason for workers to leave. This law does not give employers a right to dissolve a union.

They are not protected as if a union rep has to defend them but if the union is smart they create a different classification of an employee to show the benefit. If the union negotiates a deal including non union workers thats on them.

 

That's not how I understand it is going to work. I'll try to find the link that I read.

If the union has a benefit there will be no reason for workers to leave. This law does not give employers a right to dissolve a union.

 

To a lot of people here they don't think the union is a benefit. Ironically some of the ones who say this the loudest are ones who have been protected repeatedly by the union.

 

Our company won't dissolve the union but they no longer will have to compromise with us as they have on occasion. They already have tons of leverage and now they will have pretty much every ounce of leverage there is left to have. I'll be surprised if we still have a union here in 20-25 years.

Why? When Indiana went Right to Work, I haven't seen any cases of this. Why would it happen to your company?

 

I really wonder if Right to Work will really have the affect people think it will. Indiana's switch seems to have very minimal affect on workers.

 

And to be complete in following through the process here, RTW doesn't seem to have created any significant job growth either. That's what is touted as the reason RTW is necessary. But it is more than just legislation. Unless there is a concerted effort to lure jobs to KY after passing RTW, then there won't be any "benefit" to anyone except existing companies that will (maybe) see the decline of union employees.

 

RTW doesn't really simplify anything. And it will be a nice, "feel good" piece of legislation. But what happens after is much more important.

 

And I think workers should have a choice to join. Most 16 year old bag high school boys who are still in school are not on a career path at Kroger. And they are covered by Federal wage and hour laws far more stringently than of age workers, and high school students. Let workers decide.

Jackie Ed brings up a valid point. Why is non-union better?

 

Most folks on here know how involved I am with unions. Convince me to leave my union. What can be said to me to convince me that not being in my union anymore is a benefit to me and my family?

 

What about the sorry teachers that systems can't get rid of due their union? New York City is the perfect example.

 

Some unions are good and needed. However, unions are a large reason many companies have shipped jobs overseas.

This is a false train of thought. You take away the union here at Corning and it won't change your chances for advancement at all.

 

Maybe so, but many places are seniority only and not merit driven. If Corning promotions are based on merit instead of seniority that's great.

I don't have a problem with people not being forced into a union. I do have a problem with the union having to protect those employees who choose not to be in the union. From what I am reading unions are still required to protect those employees.

 

Now that's wrong, you opt out then you should be out. No pay, no play.

I'm in a union and for the right to work. Mind blown

Maybe so, but many places are seniority only and not merit driven. If Corning promotions are based on merit instead of seniority that's great.

 

Only company people get promotions at Corning. Union employees don't get promotions. It doesn't work like that.

Now that's wrong, you opt out then you should be out. No pay, no play.

 

Agreed. I couldn't imagine having to defend someone but at the same time if I could help them I would do what I could. It just doesn't make sense.

Agreed. I couldn't imagine having to defend someone but at the same time if I could help them I would do what I could. It just doesn't make sense.

 

They also shouldn't get the benefits of a bargained for contract. I've been Union and I've contracted alot also. Always make better money contracting, but I'm the first to go when dealing with union shops and get none of the benefits. So there is always risk reward when you're on your own. They should not get the benefit of the unions with no skin in the game.

Glad to see this legislation finally coming to a vote. Once in place, the burden will be on the unions to prove their value to the workers they want to represent rather than being able to force an employee to pay dues and toe the union line. If unions are actually better for the employees, it should be an easy sell, right? If they are selling a line of bull, the employees will be able to see through it and can decide to stop paying the dues. Unions should embrace the opportunity being presented and really sell the benefits they offer. Then, after the employees have a chance to weigh the union offer against the company offer, let the best team win. If unions are really the best worker option, the union should make out just fine.

Glad to see this legislation finally coming to a vote. Once in place, the burden will be on the unions to prove their value to the workers they want to represent rather than being able to force an employee to pay dues and toe the union line. If unions are actually better for the employees, it should be an easy sell, right? If they are selling a line of bull, the employees will be able to see through it and can decide to stop paying the dues. Unions should embrace the opportunity being presented and really sell the benefits they offer. Then, after the employees have a chance to weigh the union offer against the company offer, let the best team win. If unions are really the best worker option, the union should make out just fine.

 

Easier said than done. Whole lot of propaganda and misinformation out there. People will need to see it and live it. No one listens to anything anymore. If the pay and benefits are equal then folks that are good workers won't care if they are in a union or not.