Unions expect right-to-work will cost them members

[The Northerner]

INDIANAPOLIS -- After losing their fight against right-to-work legislation, labor organizers are making a desperate bid on shop room floors and at union halls to persuade members to keep paying their union dues and avoid crippling labor's influence in Indiana.

Factory workers, painters, electricians and other workers in the state's 179,000-member unionized work force are being called into meetings to hear impassioned pitches on why they should keep authorizing deductions from their paychecks even though the law means they no longer have to do so.

"We're gonna push them pretty hard and let them know this is what our services provide," said Brett Voorhies, legislative director for the United Steelworkers District 7, which has 45,000 active members in Indiana and Illinois. He said he has met with members of 200 locals in Indiana since supporters of the pro-business legislation begin planning their push for right-to-work last year.

But some union members are clearly tempted to drop out. Some who are politically conservative resent labor's campaign donations to Democrats; others may feel they just need the extra money.

Read more: http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2012/02/11/1425384/unions-expect-right-to-work-will.html

[Lionessa]

1. Yep, right now to many it looks like savings, in a year or two when half are laid off and the other

half have their wages and bennies cut in half, it'll be too late.

[Selatius]

2. Right-to-work simply creates a freeloader problem for labor unions.

What it simply does is give the same benefits and pay that union workers have to workers who are not in the union, don't pay union dues, and probably do not actively participate in the union. If enough freeloaders are in a workplace, the employer can petition to have the union kicked out once a majority of the workers are non-union. Once the union is decertified, the employer is free to drop wages and benefits to lower levels and also terminate workers without cause.

[Citizen Worker]

3. As a lifelong Union member I resent the contributions to democrats who don't represent the interests

of working people once they're in office. I have had the campaign manager for a democrat running for office in the state where I live say to me, "where else are you going to go," after I brought to her attention that the candidate she was working for was woefully ill informed about "free" trade and that as a worker I am opposed to such agreements. For far too long democrats have taken working people for granted and I'm done.

[Selatius]

4. I'd simply say to the campaign manager that we're going to primary the bastard with a better guy.

Having said that, I personally don't think labor unions should endorse any political party. They should simply endorse and support only the politicians who actually support labor rights and encourage others of like-mind to run for office. They shouldn't simply support the Democrat simply because of the "D" behind his or her name. By doing that, it simply encourages the Democratic establishment to take labor for granted, which it has for decades. Why else would people like Clinton and Obama sign into law free trade agreements?

[CAPHAVOC]

8. Meanwhile back at the White House.

President Obama is rolling out the Red Carpet for the Chinese. Maybe part of the contract should be free trips to China to visit their old jobs. This does not compute.

[JSnuffy]

5. Shakeups can be useful...

... and help shake off dead weight that has built up over time. They may end up with a smoother and more efficient system if they have to justify their efforts to their members.

[Omaha Steve]

6. It is almost always a free loader, not a dead wieght problem

It reduces the unions income while still having to represent the scab when they reprimanded by the company etc.

OS

[JSnuffy]

7. Also true...

... but I think my point still stands.