Wisconsin appeals court upholds 'right-to-work' law, dealing blow to unions

It's about time. Why are people forced to pay kick back money to an organization that may not have their best interests at heart?

Unions are no longer needed in this country, just about every company has an HR department and just about every employee passes billboards on their way to work with lawyers advertising their services for employment issues. The best job retainment program is doing a better job than anyone else. With my own eyes I've seen a union take good employees and discourage them from being too good. It's a shame because my company is hurting and layoffs will occur unless employees can be more productive, but they're told not to. Of course, the people who will suffer are the employees with the least seniority and they're usually the best employees, so this scenario will repeat itself again in 5 years.

And I really, really, really hope this carries over to the public unions, they have no business being unionized at all.

 

Right To Work laws absolve workers from having to pay Union dues, but allows said workers to enjoy Union benefits and protections.

talk about a sense of entitlement!!!

 

What part of, "you don't have to join a union in order to get a job" do you and your lib/prog ilk FAIL to understand?

 

So why don't Right To Work laws also absolve Unions from having to protect folks who don't pay Union dues?

 

I am actually conflicted on this as I am adamantly opposed to public unions but very supportive of private unions. Many of the things we take for granted today came about as a direct result of union activity in the past and while yest much of it is codified into law, laws can change and some companies don't always follow the laws as they should.

I think that if a company does vote to go union then everyone who works should pay as well. That being said since private unions and public unions to often end up tied at the hip I am going to just have to let go of private unions if it means the end of those greedy, lazy ****ing *******s in the public unions.

 

If you think unions are going to protect non dues paying members then I have a bridge to sell you. My local union president won't defend some people because he simply doesn't like them. He's even told me that if I had to dump one of them he would show up but the defense he would provide wouldn't enough to save them, he'd just go through the motions.

 

they are often required to by the law.

 

Maybe, but if they don't have their heart in it, as I said above, the employee is toast.

 

then the employee can sue.

Unless the law absolves a Union from having to protect non-dues paying workers, all workers should pay Union dues.

 

Those protections are ALREADY LEGISLATED INTO THE LAWS OF THE STATE.

You don't need a union to protect jack squat!

 

wrong.

Right To Work States require Unions to cover all employees in a specific work title or company, whether or not they pay Union dues.

that's the fatal flaw in Right To Work laws.

 

Right-to-work laws are statutes in 28 U.S. states that prohibit union security agreements between companies and workers' unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces may not be compelled to join a union, nor compelled to pay for any part of the cost of union representation, while generally receiving the same benefits as union members who do contribute.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

 

Link, please, to your babbling bull ****.

 

Some opponents (such as Richard Kahlenberg) have argued that while it is an effective political slogan, the phrase "right-to-work" is a misnomer because the lack of such a law does not deprive anyone of the right to work (see Taft–Hartley Act (1947), which outlawed "closed shops" which did deprive people of the right to work for not joining a union before it was enacted); a right-to-work law simply "gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it".[28][29][6][30][31] Under labor laws in the United States, the union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent has a duty of fair representation for all persons in the bargaining unit, including those who choose not to be members and pay dues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#Free_riders

 

Under labor laws in the United States, the union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent has a duty of fair representation for all persons in the bargaining unit, including those who choose not to be members and pay dues.

 

Read what you posted and actually comprehend what it says and get back to us, M'kay?

 

what are you trying to say?

spell it out, don't be shy.

 

All the laws that needed to be passed have already been passed.

 

For wages bargaining ONLY! Even then the non-union members must pay their fair share of the bargaining cost.

 

Nope, Right To Work states allow workers to leave the Union and cease paying all Union fees, dues, etc. But the Union must still bargain on their behalf and represent them.

 

Please post the statutes on that because it sounds like BULL CRAP.

 

Do you ever think those workers don't want the union to protect them? Btw what benefit is there to join a union considering the 48% Obama care tax is coming up for union Cadillac health care insurance ?

 

That's not true in New Mexico. If my techs opt out of the union they would have their union dues reduced from 4% of their check to 2%. They'd also be ostracized if they did that, but not by me.

 

• while generally receiving the same benefits as union members who do contribute.

That doesn't translate into unions protecting them.


.

 

I highlighted it for you.

Do try to understand, K?