It is a shame that all Unions do not have this standard. If they did, perhaps they would not be viewed in the negative light they create.

 

Not even the greatest union in the world can protect bad employees from the inevitable. If a company can prove an employee messed up or is a poor worker then that employee will end up fired. If a company can't prove it then they can't fire the employee. I've seen a ton of people who deserved to be fired end up being fired. I've seen some people who wouldn't have a job today if not for the union and the discipline policy. I've also seen some people who have been model employees for 16 years have one incident and be fired for that and then brought back in a month. If not for the union the company would have thrown away a 16 year career for a first incident mainly because they decided they didn't like that employee anymore. Unions protect employees in situations like that and for that I am extremely grateful.

Right to work legislation allows non union workers the right to do a job at a union shop without having to join the union and pay union dues or follow union mandates. It gives employers more flexibility in their hiring of staff and eliminates a layer of bureaucracy between management and some workers.

 

It doesn't eliminate a layer of bereaucracy between management and some workers. It makes it worse.

I'm really unclear on this subject but from what I've gathered from this thread there doesn't seem to be many people for this happening. What benefits does "the right to work" bring to the table? OR what perceived benefit is there?

 

The largest benefit is it will allow KY to get its foot in the door when companies are looking to expand in another state. When Berretta USA decided it had enough of Maryland's Bull Crap gun laws, it decided when it would no longer expand in, or invest in Maryland. Two years ago Berretta USA went on a search for a location for its new quarter of a billion to half billion dollar plant. The biggest criteria was the state's firearms policy. You won't find a more gun friendly state than KY, Texas even falls behind KY. KY did not make it past the first round of cuts, no right to work was the reason given. All the other states who made the cut were right to work. The plant was just completed just outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It will employ over 300 people paying approx $20 per hour. Tennessee and Indiana have been killing Kentucky recently.

Most people do not understand the differences between a "company union" and a "union employee". Company unions, utility work as an example, hold very little value for the employer and a much greater benefit for worker protection. Their ultimate bargaining power for wages is diminished because they have too many ancillary requirements they bargain with.

 

Unions in the utility industry are contributing directly to the accelerated costs of overhead. We pay some employees an outrageous wage for the "work" they perform and receive little to no ROI for that.

 

At my plant, the union's primary purpose is to squeeze as much money for the individual worker out of the company as they can...irrespective of whether or not the individual has earned it. Sub-par workers are protected to the detriment and risk of fellow union brothers and sisters.

 

The company has been so soft handed for so many years that management feels they have no power to take any corrective action. Company equipment in the tens of thousands of dollars is routinely destroyed due to lack of worker attention, and no penalty is imposed. Our union was able to negotiate out random drug testing in a highly safety sensitive environment.

 

RTW doesn't necessarily create jobs and is not intended to...it does tend to free up monthly cash flow for companies as they are able to eliminate the unseen costs of managing in a union environment.

 

I have been in multiple industrial unionized environments over the years....my one caveat about my current situation is that it is the worst group of protected employees that any one union could ever have represented, for all the wrong reasons....ultimately, our union has not contributed to the overall value proposition of the plant.

 

Given the industry we are in, they have participated dramatically in their own demise....I have no idea how these guys are going to pay for their new trucks and bass boats when they close the gates...but they are living rich now.

It doesn't eliminate a layer of bereaucracy between management and some workers. It makes it worse.

 

Having worked on both sides of this issue, I can say without hesitation that it does eliminate a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy when management can deal directly with an employee, without union interference and red tape.

Not even the greatest union in the world can protect bad employees from the inevitable. If a company can prove an employee messed up or is a poor worker then that employee will end up fired. If a company can't prove it then they can't fire the employee. I've seen a ton of people who deserved to be fired end up being fired. I've seen some people who wouldn't have a job today if not for the union and the discipline policy. I've also seen some people who have been model employees for 16 years have one incident and be fired for that and then brought back in a month. If not for the union the company would have thrown away a 16 year career for a first incident mainly because they decided they didn't like that employee anymore. Unions protect employees in situations like that and for that I am extremely grateful.

 

Perhaps eventually a company can rid themselves of a problem employee, after battling through yards of union red tape and arbitration. Meanwhile the company and management may have to put up with sometimes poisonous employees that taint the well, intentionally damage employee/employer relations and even sabotage work processes or equipment. These employees are out there and should be able to be fired without union disruption.

That wasn't hard.

 

“Right-to-Work” States Still Have Lower Wages | Economic Policy Institute

 

in a 2011 EPI paper, Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz estimate that wages in RTW states are 3.2 percent lower on average than wages in non-RTW states, even after controlling for a full set of worker characteristics and state labor market conditions. Gould and Shierholz (2011) also find that workers in RTW states are less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance and pension coverage.

 

Our central findings are:

 

• Wages in RTW states are 3.1 percent lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic factors as well as state macroeconomic indicators. This translates into RTW being associated with $1,558 lower annual wages for a typical full-time, full-year worker.
  
• The relationship between RTW status and wages remains economically and statistically significant under alternative specifications of our econometric model.
  

 

I would like to see this study done with cost of living figured in. When I was hired by PricewaterhouseCoopers out of college, we went to training down in Atlanta. We met up with some new hires out of New York City. Pay came up. We in Louisville all received offers in the mid 30 range. They all received offers in the mid 70 range. We could all rent decent sized apartments in decent parts of Louisville, they rented efficiency apartments in parts of New Jersey most on here wouldn't want to live in. Basically what I am saying is don't put much weight in to the difference in pay between right to work and non right to work. Much of non right to work is in the high cost of living northeast and Pacific coast. Much of right to work is in the low cost of living South.

 

My favorite scholar is Noble Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman. Dr. Friedman used to always say you could measure people's satisfaction of where they live with their feet, i.e. where are the places people are moving from and to. Right to Work states as a whole are seeing people move to them. Non right to work states as a whole are seeing the opposite. I have to believe job opportunities are driving this. A popular phrase is, "A high paying union job is great, unless it doesn't exist" Basically saying staying right to work may protect high paying jobs, the only problem is that those jobs will keep disappearing over time.

Perhaps eventually a company can rid themselves of a problem employee, after battling through yards of union red tape and arbitration. Meanwhile the company and management may have to put up with sometimes poisonous employees that taint the well, intentionally damage employee/employer relations and even sabotage work processes or equipment. These employees are out there and should be able to be fired without union disruption.

 

And sometimes the company decides they simply don't like an employee anymore and look for any reason to dismiss them. Without unions they could fire folks they don't like for a minimal reason. I've seen it and lived it. I know tons of people, myself included, that the company wishes they could fire on the spot right now for no valid reason other than they don't like them anymore. It's shameful really. Thank God for unions.

And sometimes the company decides they simply don't like an employee anymore and look for any reason to dismiss them. Without unions they could fire folks they don't like for a minimal reason. I've seen it and lived it. I know tons of people, myself included, that the company wishes they could fire on the spot right now for no valid reason other than they don't like them anymore. It's shameful really. Thank God for unions.

Yes, that is called employment at will. The employer willingly hires and the employee willingly accepts the job. Both parties agree to the job specifics and if either one decides that things are not working out, they can end the relationship. The employee by resigning or just not showing up for work, and the employer through termination or layoff. Takes place everyday in every state.

Not even the greatest union in the world can protect bad employees from the inevitable

 

The company may be able to fire the employee but the process to "protect the worker's rights" is purposely designed to be so complicated that just dealing with the employee is easier than firing them.

 

My sister in law is over human resources at GE Appliance Park for all union employees. In 7 years GE has fired 3 union employees that didn't fall under union contract violation that allow immediate firing such as threats of violence to other employees, stealing company property, purposely damaging company property, no call/no show for 8 straight days, etc.. I have to believe the firing process must be brutal if only 3 have been fired.

 

 

Jefferson County Public Schools has several former teachers in created admin jobs because firing them is too difficult. New York City public schools has an infamous lounge area for teachers who were removed from the classroom but the process to fire them is virtually impossible. We need these funds to go to education, not how it is being spent now.

Edited January 6, 20179 yr by Bert

I do know when factory's got started and work conditions and pay were terrible the workers formed Unions and helped the workers.

 

Has unions kind of gotten out of control and become more of a money scam for Union Bosses and people who claim to represent the Unions?

 

Again I'm not sure what they really do now for the workers.

I do know when factory's got started and work conditions and pay were terrible the workers formed Unions and helped the workers.

 

Has unions kind of gotten out of control and become more of a money scam for Union Bosses and people who claim to represent the Unions?

 

Again I'm not sure what they really do now for the workers.

 

Good unions serve as protection for the employees and a good conscience for the company.

I do know when factory's got started and work conditions and pay were terrible the workers formed Unions and helped the workers.

 

Has unions kind of gotten out of control and become more of a money scam for Union Bosses and people who claim to represent the Unions?

 

Again I'm not sure what they really do now for the workers.

 

I think giving the workers the right to leave the union but keep his or her job sort of keeps the union bosses on their toes so to speak to avoid that.

If you have no union representation, what happens when your job goes from $25 am hour to $17? Without representation companies can simply cut hourly rates and if you don't like it tough. Someone else can do it. Right to Work is also bad bc like said before, Jon Doe is able to be represented/protected without paying dues (akin to welfare). It is very much internal union busting, and will benefit the higher ups of these companies far more than the average hourly employee. Rates are what they are bc unions have gone to the table and fought for them. Once unions are out the door the hourly rate will decrease while profits increase. Maybe your particular package will remain intact but new hires will get less.

 

If you bring value why would a company just cut your pay if the business is doing well? A majority, a large majority of people do not work in Unions and this isn't happening on some large scale. If you have a skill and bring value why would the employer who is in business to make money want to disrupt the work of an employee making them money.

 

I'd argue why would I as a worker want to be in a union where my raises are not determined by merit. If I out work employee John Smith why should his raise equal mine come contract negotiations.

City pays exiled teachers to snooze as ‘rubber rooms’ return | New York Post

 

This is an example of Unions run amok.