explain Right to Work like I am illiterate

[JitterbugPerfume]

on the subject

[Lex]

1. You can be fired anytime for any reason or even no reason.

That's "right to work."

[ogneopasno]

3. No, that's "at will employment."

"Right to work" is something different.

[ogneopasno]

5. Whoops, replied to the wrong person.

nt

[sandnsea]

2. No closed union shops n/t

[ogneopasno]

6. You beat me to it.

nt

[Beausoleil]

4. "fire at will"

sounds so anti-worker.

[ogneopasno]

10. No, that's "at will employment"

which has nothing to do with "right to work" rules.

[90-percent]

7. Conversely

Conversely, you can quit any time you want to, also.

It's good manners to give two weeks notice. Unfortunately, you won't be given two weeks notice if you're getting fired.

-90% Jimmy

[Ishoutandscream2]

21. Wow, never thought of it that way.

[ben_meyers]

8. Arizona is a "right to work state"

you can't be forced to join the union as a condition of employment.

[ogneopasno]

9. "Right to work," also known as "right to starve,"

means that if your employer is union, you are not required to join the union to work there. The shop is not "closed" to non-union employees.

[SoCalDem]

11. Right to work= your boss can pay you shit wages and fire you when he wants

for any reason..

Right to work was a "slam" on unions who "make" their members pay dues..Oh the HORROR!!! I made almost $17 an hour waaaay back in 1995 and my HORRIBLE union dues?? $26 a month :)

Poor folks (mostly in the south) who had NO jobs were part of the corporate ploy to get companies from "up north" to relocate "down south" where there was an eager workforce, just waiting to work for just about anything..(anything's better than nothing)..

Some companies up north who threatened to move, but got big concessions from unions, limped along for a while until they finally bailed to the south and then on to Mexico, and now China...but many companies just folded up their outdated old plants, and got brand new shiny ones built by southern taxpayers, in exchange for shit-for-wages jobs.. Those empty brick behemoths they left behind..along with the decades of pollution..well that became the burden of the struggling communites to deal with

Many southern communities gave tax-writedowns/holidays for re-locating companies, allowed them to pollute as much as they wanted and even gave them kickbacks..Why?? Local politicians running for office wanted to have "jobs jobs jobs" on their resumes as the ran for office..and every plant that relocated from up-north, created a new voter base in the south( higher-ups from the companies often moved with the company), and left a demorialized, devastated community behind them....and a busted union...

If there was a union put in place in the "new" location, right to work, meant that the new workers who signed on, did not have to join the union, or pay dues, but they could benefit from the efforts of the ones who were union.. I am guessing, but it would not be hard to see how eventually there would be more non-union workers than union, and the union would just "go away" through attrition, and dwindling numbers means less influence on bosses..

[ogneopasno]

12. No, that's at-will employment.

"Right to work" and "at-will employment" are different things. I hate to harp on this, but people need to understand the difference.

[SoCalDem]

13. I was editing as you were replying

:)

[louis c]

14. Here it is

Right to work really means right to work for less. It's a method to bust a union. Right to work is a state law which allows a person to receive the benefits of a union without paying dues.

Here in Mass., which is NOT a right to work state, we have union security in almost every contract. In mine, you can be terminated if you fail to join the union in 30 days. however, under the federal statute, you can opt out of the union and pay a service fee for negotiating the collective bargaining agreement. Also, you may not be placed on the seniority list, which is the most important part of being in a union.

In a "right to work" state, the union has no rights. The worker can opt out of the union, but continue to receive all the benefits the union grants every other worker, including grievance and arbitration, which is the most expensive part of running a local. What happens is this. The other workers see that someone has the same rights as they do, for free. First comes dissension and division among the members. Then, more and more members opt out. The union can not sustain itself, financially, and eventually is dissolved. It's a way of destroying unions.

If someone doesn't want to work at a union shop, they have other alternatives. But to suck up the benefits that have taken years to acquire, and then choose not to belong to the organization that did that for you, isn't fair to all the hard-working men and women who put their asses on the line.

[Union Thug]

15. It's an oxymoron. Under right to work, you have no right to any democratic institutions

in the work place.

This is an authoritarian measure that keeps you and your fellow employees from taking democratic control over your work conditions - by effectively shutting out closed shops. It works by strangling the union by allowing non-members to enjoy union bennies that others pay for.

[WyLoochka]

16. It was designed to dilute,

and eventually kill, the collective bargaining movement.

It plays on the short sightedness of ill informed workers, who can easily be fooled thinking that they are acting in their own self interest, and saving a few bucks, by not paying Union Dues.

These ill informed workers will gladly take all the gains that have historically been made through collective bargaining; 40 hr work weeks, vacation & sick pay, health and pension benefits, safety regulations etc and stiff the Unions which made it all possible and which need funding in order to continue to work hard, against the assault of management trying to take those those things taken away from workers.

Any worker who supports "Right to Work" Laws has been thoroughly buffaloed.

[Selatius]

17. "Right to work" laws are designed to cripple labor unions by creating a freeloader problem.

In right-to-work states, an employee does not have to join a union if he becomes employed in a unionized workplace as a condition for employment. In states where closed shops exist, one must join the labor union in order to work with that particular employer.

The freeloader problem arises because the right-to-work law also stipulates that the non-union employee is to be given the same pay and benefits as an employee who is in the labor union and does pay union dues.

Of course, this means many employees ask, "Why should I pay union dues if I get the same benefits as unionized employees?" Thus, the labor union suffers a freeloader problem from workers who may not contribute to the efforts of that union to secure those pay and benefit concessions from the employer in the first place.

If enough non-unionized employees can enter this particular workplace, the labor union can fall victim to a de-unionization drive led by the employer. After the union is removed in a successful signature drive, the employer gains full power over employees in terms of cutting pay and benefits to bring down labor costs and boost profit margins.

This is why many Southern and rural states have very weak labor unions to no labor unions. They have passed "right to work" laws.

Labor, for 50 years, has attempted to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act which created a section in labor law allowing states the discretion to pass these laws. With the act repealed, right-to-work laws would automatically become void.

A compromise that labor hopes to pass now is the Employee Free-Choice Act making it as easy to unionize as it is for employers to de-unionize. This, in theory, puts labor power on equal footing with management power.

[JitterbugPerfume]

18. I knew I could depend on DUers for a answer

I was asked about it in a survey earlier today, and it sounded suspicious , so I answered undecided --dammit

[guitar man]

19. Ok, I know a little bit about this

we went through this in '02 here in Oklahoma, I fought hard against it, but unfortunately, it passed. :(

As it is, in a non "rigt to work" state, there is no such thing as a closed shop. There are union shops and non-union shops. Closed shops have been illegal since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act which amended the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

In a non "right to work" state, if you go to work at a unionized company, you cannot be compelled to join the union, but must pay union dues to cover the cost of union representation. If you object to paying the portion of your dues that goes to anything other than representation (political contributions etc.), you don't have to pay that and can only be charged for the actual cost of representation. (Beck v CWA, 1988)

Now, in a "right to work" state, you not only do not have to join the union, you don't have to pay anything to the union to work there. But, here's the kicker. If by going to work at unionized company with a collective bargaining agreement in place, you will become a member of a "bargaining unit" and will be entitled to the same pay, benefits and representation that the union has bargained to put in place for its members. About the only thing you can't do as a "free rider" is attend union meetings and vote in union elections.

In other words, "right to work" is a ruse, it requires unions to expend resources on those that refuse to pay for them and is generally intended to weaken unions to the point where they give up and leave the companies. If we could manage to repeal Taft Hartley, "right to work" would become unlawful on a federal level and we would see a return to the type of compensation my grandfather and countless other union members envisioned for their children and grandchildren.

[sandnsea]

24. Right, much better explanation

I shouldn't have used the term closed shop, which means only union members can even be employed to begin with.

[guitar man]

25. well, the right wing

loves to bandy the term "closed shop" around any time they are propagandizing about unionization to the point that the misnomer has become commonplace. My friend who is an assistant BM for the IBEW local told me the other day that when we start seeing ads about the employee free choice act, the telltale code word in their ads will be "closed shop", a dead tipoff that it's a RW talking point right off the bat.

[sandnsea]

26. Well, I was just trying to think of quick words

to describe the idea that a right to work state is about busting unions.

[guitar man]

28. and you're 100% right

that's what it is all about, and nothing more elegant than that. it's good to know there are others on the right side out there :hi:

[old mark]

20. It is Right wing language for a state that prohibits

workplaces that are union - only. In theory, you have the "right -to-work" in alongside of union members even if you are not a union member, and you do not have to pay a "fair share' payrool deduction in place of union dues, as you would in most Union workplaces. The "fair share" non-union workers get the same pay and benefits as Union members, but cannot vote on contracts or use Union Stewards in any type of interactions with management. The "right-to-work" folks would probably end up making less money and not having benefits.

It is a form of what used to be called "Union Busting".
Republicans lied about this issue to make many people think they gained some advantage by not being in a Union.

mark (Former AFSCME Steward)

[bread_and_roses]

22. Thanks to all those above who defined "right to work" correctly

and noted its' union busting effect - you saved me the time doing it!

[Greyhound]

23. Simply another tool to inhibit collective bargaining.

As long as they can keep the table tilted in favor of the parasites, the parasites will keep winning.

[TahitiNut]

27. "Right To Work" = right to be paid less, abused more, and not organize. ("Scab Empowerment")

Some folks seem to know what they deserve. :eyes:

:shrug:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

29. It's your employer's right to work you to death

You have the right to do what you're told, with no say in improving your working conditions.

You have the right to take what you're given, with no collective bargaining to give you fair market compensation for your efforts.

You have the right to try and find another job any time your employer says You're Fired, because you cannot file a grievance or arbitrate against unfair dismissal.

Under Right to Work, you have no rights. You have no one on your side, because Right to Work discourages you and your coworkers from combining your collective power.

If an employer ever says to you, "We treat our workers just as good as the union shops do, so we don't need a union here," remember that union shops set the standards that non-union shops were forced to matched.