End of collective bargaining/other anti-union measures plus reactions ...

He got 48.5% of the Romney vs. Obama vote. The 47% is the better figure, though, as well as having poetic justice.

 

The bill doesn't "destroy" unions, rather it makes joining a union optional. If the unions are seen as necessary you can voluntarily join.

 

No use complaining about procedure. Just remember, and punish every person who supported that measure at the polls.

 

Also, it's possible that the theory works when the top marginal tax rate is 70% but not when it's barely half that.

 

I understand the moral argument here. However.

Your stance is pretty stupid, since you've completely ignored the free rider problem. Remember, it's against the law for a union to negotiate a better deal and then get that deal only for union members.

Solve that problem and we can talk about "right to work" laws. Until then, it's stupid policy.

 

What I meant to write but didn't. More than possible. Meaning it probably did work early on for Reagan, and it absolutely positively does not work at today's rates.

Side note, but I'm always amused that the same people who say that a tax rate of 40% on marginal income discourages work, are those who argue for low taxes on dividends and capital gains. Ummm, the fact that I only pay 15% on my passive investments is a disincentive to work, fellas. Why bust my tail when I can put on my smoking jacket, clip bond coupons, and pay low taxes for doing so?

 

As a matter of fact, a low investment income tax incentivizes gambling on stocks and other financial instruments while in a way penalizes investment in actually productive companies.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/25/1102046/-The-Lie-Behind-Capital-Gains-Tax-Rates

 

The ideal GOP tax policy is that which supports high wealth. Namely, zero taxes on estates, zero taxes on dividends, zero taxes on capital gains, and a hump-shaped curve on income, such that "job creators" would be taxed at a low rate on high marginal income.

Don't expect such policies to be good for the overall economy, or for the country, or for whatever or whomever. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. That's not why they were created, though.

 

But that is the funny thing of the conservative policies, they want a bigger share of the pie for the "job creators", even if the end result is that the pie shrinks. On the other hand progressive policies usually advocate for ways to have a more balanced share of the pie that usually generate pie growth.

 

That was President Obama's argument with his willfully misinterpreted "redistribution" comment. All things being equal, societies with greater equality of income have stronger economies.

 

Does it also take away the legal obligation of the unions to represent those that choose not to join them? I can see that it doesn't destroy them directly but having others pay for the services provided to those that aren't willing to contribute doesn't sound right.

If unions negotiate wages and benefits for the employees that they represent does that impact the pay and benefits for employees that choose not to pay for representation?

Joining a union is optional in Michigan without this law. This law eliminates the requirement to pay for benefits negotiated by the unions.

 

This is on point.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/12/11/right_to_work_laws_stunning_hypocrisy.html

I had never thought of it this way (probably due to the conservative bias in the media.) But these RTW laws are a RESTRICTION of freedom.

 

No, your stance is pretty stupid because the free rider problem isn't one of the business so it is totally insignificant.

 

A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement – also known as a union security clause – that requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them. Right to Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not. In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.
“Right to Work” laws aren’t fair to dues-paying members. If a worker who is represented by a union and doesn’t pay dues is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly, time-consuming legal process. Since the union represents everyone, everyone benefits, so everyone should share in the costs of providing these services. Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union is they think it has not represented them well enough!"


http://www.mnaflcio.org/news/right-work-laws-get-facts

So the state passes laws that require unions to provide services without getting paid for them. These are the guys that don't think government should be picking winners and losers?

 

There is nothing fair about charging dues as a condition for employment.

 

It's like paying the mob for "protection".

 

It's pretty close. Part of your take home gets taken and passed up the chain. No real difference.

 

Please. It's a condition of employment, like any other condition of employment. If you don't want to pay the dues, you don't have to work there. If an employer in a non-union shop is paying unusually low wages, you'd never say that the workers' "freedom" or "right" to be paid more is being infringed (assuming the pay is at or above minimum wage of course). If you don't like the contract you're being offered... you don't have to work there. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

On the other hand, with these right-to-work laws, makers are being forced to provide for takers.

 

Right to work laws don't "force" anything other than having the unions prove their worth. If they are worth the dues, workers will pay them, right?

 

Of course they do. They force unions to bargain on behalf of workers who aren't paying dues.

Why would anyone pay for something that he's getting for free? Is that how you think the free market works? We should apply that to all products and services. Everybody is entitled to have them, even if they don't pay. If the product/service is worth it, people will choose to pay voluntarily. Right?

 

Unions bargain for the compensation package they think is fair for the work performed. if it's fair for one worker, why wouldn't it be fair for everyone? Is it somehow more fair if you are giving a % of your pay to someone else?