Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Senators Introduce National 'Right-to-Work' Bill to Restrict Unions
FoxNews.com ^ | 3/9/2011

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: national; right; unions; wisconsinshowdown; work
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-140 next last
To: Vendome
It is, in fact, a 10th amendment right of responsibility and an option of action by agency to construct laws of the individuals right to exercise their agency

I don't kow how you can say that compelling a person to join an organization and pay dues --just to earn a living-- is justified by "agency."

Seems to me the states are impairing the right to contract.

61 posted on 03/12/2011 11:49:24 AM PST by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
I have to agree with your argument. This issue is more fundamental than even the 10th amendment.

This is Bill of Rights stuff.

62 posted on 03/12/2011 11:52:27 AM PST by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

My feelings also. However I think I go further; in some instances there should be no approval/granting of salaries, benefits, pension plans, etc. without a vote of the public.


63 posted on 03/12/2011 11:56:25 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

My feelings also. However I think I go further; in some instances there should be no approval/granting of salaries, benefits, pension plans, etc. without a vote of the public.


64 posted on 03/12/2011 11:57:09 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle; dirtboy
That is a very good question. I would say no. It sounds like a state right under the 10th Amendment.

I would have to agree with that. I do like the fact that Dem-libs heads will explode over this. This at least expands attention to the issue and we can correct our over zealous Congress-critters in the ensuing discussion.

65 posted on 03/12/2011 11:58:50 AM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GVnana
Well I always love how some on here manage to distort the context of a comment into some skewed viewpoint that they have cultivated in their own mind. The point I was making and, please reread the post, was that the people we have sent to D.C. need to address the current disasters happening in our Nation and not introduce more legislation that is taking time away from those things. There is enough already. Seems to me the states are doing a good job and WI has started a domino effect.
66 posted on 03/12/2011 12:04:34 PM PST by Outlaw Woman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

In my opinion, no. The whole point of having 50 separate states is to let them govern the way they want. If a state wants to be completely socially liberal, let it. People will move or attitudes will change. But, with some of the later amendments, this will probably be justified as equal protection, or something.


67 posted on 03/12/2011 12:15:26 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Not exactly. It doesnt say anything about association. It says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to peaceably assemble.


68 posted on 03/12/2011 12:20:09 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Doctor 2Brains

“Bravo, sir, bravo.”

Terrorize the terrorists.


69 posted on 03/12/2011 12:21:08 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (The way to beat a terrorist is to terrorize him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

The Constitution doesnt really address anyone’s right to work. If you dont want to work for a Union, find a non-union job or move. No one is compelled into anything.


70 posted on 03/12/2011 12:22:45 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman
My apologies. I meant no offense. (Frankly, I wasn't expecting the ferocity of reaction this posting has elicited.)

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

I'm in support of this legislation because:

1. Forced membership in a union, as I see it, is a violation of the principle of free association.

2. Why allow such an obvious corruption of liberty and our political process to remain simply because it is "established."

3. The timing is right.

71 posted on 03/12/2011 12:25:25 PM PST by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

Its just like saving the free market by abandoning free market principles (said by both Bush and FDR, practiced by most)


72 posted on 03/12/2011 12:27:39 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

We certainly dont get it with more Federal laws. Plus, no one is forced to join a union. There are always options. Most people that dont want to join but do anyway, do it because they would rather sacrifice that than something in their personal life.


73 posted on 03/12/2011 12:30:50 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Doctor 2Brains

I agree...you have stated this very well.

Hopefully this will cause others to stop and think.

Thank you for posting this.


74 posted on 03/12/2011 12:31:09 PM PST by WorldviewDad (following God instead of culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Freedom of association is not in the 1st Amendment. The right to peaceably assemble and petition the government is.


75 posted on 03/12/2011 12:33:03 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam
"No one is forced to join a union."

Really?

Why should someone be forced to give up a good job because union membership is required?

You're letting unions control the field. There's nothing "free" about that.

76 posted on 03/12/2011 12:34:40 PM PST by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

-——is this a proper use of federal authority?———

That is a very good question.

The matter of unions is likely one of those powers not specifically enumerated but possibly applicable to jobs related to interstate commerce. That is having closed shop in Michigqan makes the cost of a car in Tennessee, a right to work state, more expensive than necessary. The forced unionism makes a Tennessee car buyer a party to the union dues pass through to the DNC.

The problem is union dues pass through directly to the DNC.
The political pass through should be deductible from the dues paid by those not wising to make a political contribution. As I understand it now a request can be made for a refund but that refund might not be made and the size is determined by the union.


77 posted on 03/12/2011 12:35:22 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

It will be killed by Senate RINOs.


78 posted on 03/12/2011 12:36:59 PM PST by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

I know. And it’s patently unconstitutional in my view.


79 posted on 03/12/2011 12:43:06 PM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

I know. And it’s patently unconstitutional in my view.


80 posted on 03/12/2011 12:43:16 PM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson