Posted on 03/12/2011 10:32:19 AM PST by GVnana
A group of conservative U.S. senators has introduced a bill to restrict unions from forcing workers to join and pay dues as a condition of employment.
The move on Capitol Hill comes as several states consider what's known as "right-to-work" legislation -- proposals that have met stiff resistance. Indiana Republicans recently shelved their right-to-work bill after it sparked protests at the capital and after Democrats fled the state to block it, mimicking the tactic used by Wisconsin lawmakers holding up Gov. Scott Walker's anti-union proposal.
But GOP senators in Washington said national legislation is needed to stop the "strong-arm political tactics" they claim labor bosses are using to compel new employees into joining their ranks. They introduced the National Right to Work Act Tuesday.
-snip-
DeMint was joined by seven other co-sponsors, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Mike Lee, R-Utah; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; James Risch, R-Idaho; Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; and David Vitter, R-La.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
FWIW:
In brief:
Closed shop: You have to be in the union to get hired, and stay in the union to keep working. Outlawed in 1947. (though there’s still some equivalents in the construction trades)
Union shop: You have to join the union once hired, then keep paying dues to keep working. Getting kicked out of the union doesn’t get you fired as long as you keep paying dues.
Agency shop: You can be hired and work without joining the union, but have to pay either dues or an “agency fee” to the union in order to keep working.
Open shop: No membership or dues paying required.
For Congress to pass federal legislation that allow unions to force employers to deduct dues from employees wages is subversive, to force employees to pay dues or agency fees or be fired is slavery; this is just a ridiculous situation that has been allowed to go on for far too long.
There is a goddamn communist in the White House this very minute because of the unions, and they and the CPUSA are going down in flames as payback.
There I go again, commenting on something I don't know squat about.
Yes, I must've meant "union shop".
There I go again, commenting on something I don't know squat about.
Yes, I must've meant "union shop".
California is a "right to work" state and that hasn't worked out too well. Once the unions are in, they control the field.
No, California is not a “right to work” state.
If it is up to states to decide whether to let the public sector unions bankrupt them then such states should get zero federal relief when they run out of money.
Texas should not have to pick up the tab for irresponsible left wing states.
I disagree. There’s nothing wrong with collective bargaining in the private sector providing there’s no thuggery, nor coercion to join the collective body.
You are 100% wrong. The thuggery and coercion begin the very moment an employer cannot fire an employee for organizing against the employer’s private interest.
You’re saying I’m wrong based on a contradiction of what I’ve stated.
Thuggery and coercion should be dealt with in a legal, but forceful manner. I’m not arguing the effectiveness of law enforcement.
There’s no reason why employees could not negotiate with an employer as a group. To say that should be outlawed is insane. No agreement, no employment. Someone else can fill the jobs.
You say coercion is bad. COERCION BEGINS THE MOMENT I CANNOT FIRE YOU FOR ORGANIZING AGAINST MY INTEREST ON MY OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY. PERIOD! I never said (unless I was a bit carried away) that unions should be illegal. You want to join a union, FINE! I want to fire you the second you do so, FINE! No coercion anywhere. It’s called freedom. Unions can only exist because the FED GOV says I cannot decide who I work with on my own private property. The FED GOV does this in order to purchase votes for the Democrat party. Period.
I don't know how that happened. I could've inadvertently double clicked, but not that many times. My computer was acting strangely yesterday; don't know if it was the computer or the internet connection, but I'm blaming it on the gremlins.
I would agree with you if individual liberty cut both ways vis-a-vis the unions. In that case, employers would be equally at liberty to sign a binding union agreement or a strict non-union agreement with employees. Unions would be entitled to represent their own members but would have no standing to represent those who chose not to join. Employers would be under no obligation to rehire strikers (a strike is just collective quitting). But none of this is the case. Federal labor law since the 1930's has entrenched union privilege. I'd be all for a restoration of a level playing field.
As much as I like the idea of this legislative proposal I would think the Federal government is not permitted to involve itself in state labor arrangements.
However, there may be 14th amendment protections through the federal courts and I would be curious to know if cases have surfaced along these lines in the past.
Thanks for the case background.
It seems Warren and other feeble minds neglected to acknowledge the single most salient fact before them, that the Communist Party in all its manifestations was and is a foreign and domestic enemy of the United States.
Excluding your numerous “YOU” references, we don’t seem to disagree. The issue is coercion, and the law should be strengthen to prevent it.
Collective bargaining that involves taxpayer funded resources should be outlawed. In private sector, I have no problem with it providing the coercion factor is managed.
Do you or do you not agree that I should be able to fire anybody the very moment he joins a union. THAT is managing coercion. If I cannot fire you, I am being coerced by the government to continue to hand an employee my private property (cash) even though he is organizing on my private property against my private interests, all in the name of buying democrat party votes. Yes or no — can I fire you for joining a union?
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government needs to pass any money to the states other then support the defined items such as defense of the nation?
Burn em!
LOL
It doesn’t. And the practice is just encouraging more corruption and failed progressive policies. I’m with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.