Missouri Voters Overturn Right-To-Work Measure

[GMDino]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/missouri-voters-overturn-right-to-work-law-by-referendum_us_5b69b189e4b0b15abaa751fb

Quote:Labor groups won a landmark victory Tuesday as Missourians voted by referendum to overturn the state’s new right-to-work law, an embarrassing rejection for the state’s Republican lawmakers.



Proposition A asked voters whether or not they would like to enact the right-to-work statute that the state legislature passed and former Gov. Eric Greitens ® signed early last year. The “no” votes defeated the “yes,” according to returns released Tuesday night by the secretary of state.


The ballot measure drew interest far beyond Missouri due to the rapid spread of right-to-work laws around the country. Such laws give workers who are covered by a union contract the option to not pay any union fees while still enjoying the contract’s protections. Unions are likely to lose members and funding after a state becomes right-to-work.


The Republicans who control both chambers of the legislature thought they made Missouri the 28th right-to-work state last year. But labor groups and their allies succeeded in rounding up enough signatures to put the question directly to voters, then spent months building a “no” campaign to drive voter turnout.


The result was a rare victory for unions in the nationwide right-to-work fight. Although the laws used to be confined mostly to the South and West, the anti-union groups that back them have succeeded in making them the norm rather than the exception around the country. Even longtime labor strongholds like Michigan and Wisconsin have passed right-to-work measures in recent years, thanks to GOP control of state government.

Unions are hoping that Missourians’ decision to reject right-to-work takes some steam out of the nationwide right-wing campaign to expand them. In the runup to the vote, they argued that the referendum would prove that the lawmakers rushing to enact them were out of touch with voters on the issue.


“We think that the legislature and the people are miles apart on this,” Erin Schrimpf, a spokeswoman for the labor-backed coalition We Are Missouri, told HuffPost the night before the vote.


The “no” campaign outspent “yes” groups by an eight-to-one margin ahead of the vote, according to an analysis by the Missouri Times. Labor groups also fanned out with their door-knocking operations, trying to reach not only union members but the general public with their argument that a right-to-work law would drive down wages and working conditions for everyone.

Quote:
[/url]William Gorman@WilliamGGorman





Seemed like Labor was extremely organized against Prop A. I got at least a dozen direct mailers and calls.
Dave Jamieson, LLC

@jamieson

Missouri’s right-to-work law is going down by a nearly 2-1 margin with 20% of precincts reporting right now #PropA

10:02 PM - Aug 7, 2018

• 
  19
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/WilliamGGorman]See William Gorman's other Tweets
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy



One campaigner, Chloe Collins, told HuffPost Monday that she was canvassing six days a week because she feared the law would weaken her union and therefore her job benefits and protections. Collins works at St. Louis Lambert International Airport as a janitor and is a member of the Service Employees International Union Local 1.


″I feel I wouldn’t have security at work,” Collins said.


The union membership rate in the U.S. is near an all-time low, with just 6.5 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union. The lawmakers pushing right-to-work laws have argued that the statutes would attract new employers who don’t want to deal with collective bargaining. They also claim the statutes would free workers from having to support unions they may disagree with, but workers are already free from having to pay for their union’s political activity. The right-to-work law means they wouldn’t have to pay for bargaining and representation, either.


While Tuesday’s vote may provide a boost to the labor movement, referendums have their limits as a strategy to beat back right-to-work laws. Only about half of states allow for referendums, and the Missouri referendum only worked because labor groups moved quickly for a ballot measure after the right-to-work law was passed. In other states, right-to-work statutes have been on the books for years or even decades. Voters in these states may be less likely to overturn what they see as long-settled law.

[*michaelsean*]

How does this line up with the SC decision?

[Benton]

Good to hear. Hopefully other states will start reversing the direction. Should help improve wages.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-08-2018, 04:02 PM)Benton Wrote: Good to hear. Hopefully other states will start reversing the direction. Should help improve wages.

Agreed plus increase apprenticeship programs.

[*michaelsean*]

I know the arguments against right to work, but I'm still for it. I don't see how a third party gets to decide your conditions of employment. Now if the employer makes it a condition of your employment then I have no problem. Perhaps that can be agreed on in collective bargaining.

[Benton]

(08-08-2018, 05:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I know the arguments against right to work, but I'm still for it. I don't see how a third party gets to decide your conditions of employment. Now if the employer makes it a condition of your employment then I have no problem. Perhaps that can be agreed on in collective bargaining.

Uh... who is going to collectively bargain? A group of employees?

Because I think you just talked yourself into unionizing!



In my experiences, right to work is one of those times where people hear the carefully selected term coming from a political party they favor and go “yeah, I think everyone should be able to work! Damn liberals!”

Then they find out that it takes away some of the rights of workers and it doesn’t seem as good of an idea. Or they find out states with right to work typically have lower wages in those industries and it’s not as good of an idea.


Edit to add: there really isn’t a third party. There can be, if a side brings in an arbitrator. But it’s still just somebody representing the group (either group of workers or group of shareholders).

[*bfine32*]

So does this mean a worker has the right not to join/be represented by the union or is he/she forced to pay union dues?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 06:07 PM)Benton Wrote: Uh... who is going to collectively bargain? A group of employees?

Because I think you just talked yourself into unionizing!



In my experiences, right to work is one of those times where people hear the carefully selected term coming from a political party they favor and go “yeah, I think everyone should be able to work! Damn liberals!”

Then they find out that it takes away some of the rights of workers and it doesn’t seem as good of an idea. Or they find out states with right to work typically have lower wages in those industries and it’s not as good of an idea.


Edit to add: there really isn’t a third party. There can be, if a side brings in an arbitrator. But it’s still just somebody representing the group (either group of workers or group of shareholders).

I understand who does the collective bargaining and if the employer and union agree to make it a stipulation of employment during collective bargaining then I’m ok with it.

Of course there’s a third party. There’s me, the employer, and the group of employees who make up the union. I think people should be able to organize and try for what they want, but the government shouldn’t give them a special privilege to declare that if I want to work for a company I have to give their group money.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2018, 10:45 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How does this line up with the SC decision?

The SCOTUS decision was regarding public sector unions, which are a bit of a different beast than private sector.

(08-08-2018, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So does this mean a worker has the right not to join/be represented by the union or is he/she forced to pay union dues?

This means that a worker can be forced to pay union dues in a union shop.

[Yojimbo]

(08-08-2018, 07:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The SCOTUS decision was regarding public sector unions, which are a bit of a different beast than private sector.


This means that a worker can be forced to pay union dues in a union shop.

As a condition of employment and if they don’t like it, they can go work somewhere else

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2018, 08:08 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: As a condition of employment and if they don’t like it, they can go work somewhere else

It's the free market!

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 08:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's the free market!

It’s the exact opposite of a free market.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 08:08 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: As a condition of employment and if they don’t like it, they can go work somewhere else

Except it’s a condition of employment dictated by a third party with the backing of the government.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2018, 08:08 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: As a condition of employment and if they don’t like it, they can go work somewhere else

Sucks having to pay the man for the right to work 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 08:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sucks having to pay the man for the right to work 

Almost like having to go to the company store.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2018, 08:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Almost like having to go to the company store.

I'll freely admit my experience in private sector unions is quite dated. Back before I joined the Military I worked at Rainbow Bread (they had a bakery in Cincy back then); there was no question on how things worked. You joined the union, paid you dues, and did as you were instructed. We didn't have the option of washing our own uniforms, we had to use and pay for the cleaners service.

Given I was an ignorant kid and simply did as I was told. As I have matured there just seems something very perverse about the procedure. Unions might be the best thing in the world; I just can't go with the mandatory payment rule. Why don't I get to decide? It's like you're telling me I'm not smart enough to make my own choice.  

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 08:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll freely admit my experience in private sector unions is quite dated. Back before I joined the Military I worked at Rainbow Bread (they had a bakery in Cincy back then); there was no question on how things worked. You joined the union, paid you dues, and did as you were instructed. We didn't have the option of washing our own uniforms, we had to use and pay for the cleaners service.

Given I was an ignorant kid and simply did as I was told. As I have matured there just seems something very perverse about the procedure. Unions might be the best thing in the world; I just can't go with the mandatory payment rule. Why don't I get to decide? It's like you're telling me I'm not smart enough to make my own choice.  

I believe that’s where my grandfather wotlrked most of his life and he was born in like 1909. Even after he retired he was up by 4:00 am.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-08-2018, 08:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll freely admit my experience in private sector unions is quite dated. Back before I joined the Military I worked at Rainbow Bread (they had a bakery in Cincy back then); there was no question on how things worked. You joined the union, paid you dues, and did as you were instructed. We didn't have the option of washing our own uniforms, we had to use and pay for the cleaners service.

Given I was an ignorant kid and simply did as I was told. As I have matured there just seems something very perverse about the procedure. Unions might be the best thing in the world; I just can't go with the mandatory payment rule. Why don't I get to decide? It's like you're telling me I'm not smart enough to make my own choice.  

As long as you know what the deal is, heading into a situation, you always have a choice.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2018, 09:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As long as you know what the deal is, heading into a situation, you always have a choice.

Really not much of a choice. Give these folks part of your money or don't work. But yeah, I suppose you have a choice unless of course unions are mandatory or start out in a managerial role.  As I said, I see the requirement to pay to work to be perverse. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2018, 08:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It’s the exact opposite of a free market.

Not really. you have the choice to work there or not. You have the choice to buy from a union shop or not. The government isn't mandating union shops, it's giving the people and the businesses the option, which is a free market situation.