Missouri Voters Overturn Right-To-Work Measure

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2018, 09:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I am going to frame these words. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2018, 09:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am going to frame these words. 

I'm saying that is how the free market works, not that I am in favor of it. That's the difference between me and the comparison to which you are making.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2018, 09:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm saying that is how the free market works, not that I am in favor of it. That's the difference between me and the comparison to which you are making.

So you're not in favor of the ruling? Glad we're on the same sheet. 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 09:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

No it’s allowing a third party to dictate rules of employment. If the employer wants to allow it or it gets negotiated during bargaining that’s one thing, but to say the employee has to pay dues regardless of whether the employee wants it or the employer wants to mandate it is not free market. If this is hurting unions then the free market would say adapt or go away. Convince or negotiate with the employer to make it mandatory. I have no issue with that. So if the employer is on board then I don’t think right to work laws should cover them.

[Benton]

(08-08-2018, 09:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No it’s allowing a third party to dictate rules of employment.

With respect, no.

Unions vote on stuff. If a union pushed for a 3% pay increase, a 2% addition to retirement and to stop using a machine that chops off toes, that’s because the workers voted for that.

It’s not some unrelated third person who comes in and says “hey, this is what you’re going to mandate.”

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 10:29 PM)Benton Wrote: With respect, no.

Unions vote on stuff. If a union pushed for a 3% pay increase, a 2% addition to retirement and to stop using a machine that chops off toes, that’s because the workers voted for that.

It’s not some unrelated third person who comes in and says “hey, this is what you’re going to mandate.”

Well let’s make sure I understand the laws first. Maybe I’m off there. Can an employee be forced to pay dues even if the employer doesn’t mandate it?

[*Nately120*]

(08-08-2018, 10:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well let’s make sure I understand the laws first. Maybe I’m off there. Can an employee be forced to pay dues even if the employer doesn’t mandate it?

I think the issue is that the union is supposed to be fighting for all of the employees.  WHo knows, I know plenty of people who hate unions but still take weekends off and/or gleefully work jobs where they might not head home with limbs missing etc. anyways.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-08-2018, 11:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think the issue is that the union is supposed to be fighting for all of the employees.  WHo knows, I know plenty of people who hate unions but still take weekends off and/or gleefully work jobs where they might not head home with limbs missing etc. anyways.

I understand the reasons for being against right to work. I just need some clarification on who is mandating a person paying dues.

[Benton]

(08-08-2018, 10:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well let’s make sure I understand the laws first. Maybe I’m off there. Can an employee be forced to pay dues even if the employer doesn’t mandate it?

The union, which isn’t a third party, it’s the fellow workers mandates it, not the employer.

A union is like a representative democracy. You vote on stuff. The stuff you vote on is what the negotiator (who you elected) talks to the boss (or most normally a representative of the boss) about.

People paint unions as all bad, but sometimes they vote as a group to take pay cuts to maintain operations. Or to deal with lesser equipment or cheaper contract labor. It’s like hostess a few years ago tried to say they were filing banlruptcy because of evil union demands. Well, prior to that the union took a pay cut to stay in business, but the company turned around and raised executive pay with the difference. So they went on strike.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2018, 12:44 AM)Benton Wrote: The union, which isn’t a third party, it’s the fellow workers mandates it, not the employer.

A union is like a representative democracy. You vote on stuff. The stuff you vote on is what the negotiator (who you elected) talks to the boss (or most normally a representative of the boss) about.

People paint unions as all bad, but sometimes they vote as a group to take pay cuts to maintain operations. Or to deal with lesser equipment or cheaper contract labor. It’s like hostess a few years ago tried to say they were filing banlruptcy because of evil union demands. Well, prior to that the union took a pay cut to stay in business, but the company turned around and raised executive pay with the difference. So they went on strike.

The union is a third party there. I understand it consists of the other workers, but it’s still a third party. There is the employer who doesn’t mandate it, there is the employee who doesn’t want it, so there has to be a third party if you still have to pay it.

I’m not trying to bash unions with this. I just believe they have been granted an authority they should not have.

[Benton]

(08-09-2018, 07:09 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The union is a third party there. I understand it consists of the other workers, but it’s still a third party. There is the employer who doesn’t mandate it, there is the employee who doesn’t want it, so there has to be a third party if you still have to pay it.

I’m not trying to bash unions with this. I just believe they have been granted an authority they should not have.

If employees don’t want it, they can vote out of it.

I don’t see how a group comprising of the workers would be considered a third party. You’ve got workers and employers.

[Au165]

Can we stop with the line about unions preventing limbs getting chopped off? There was a time that was relevant however OSHA and the quickness which litigation is thrown around in our society have made that function of unions obsolete today.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-09-2018, 08:33 AM)Au165 Wrote: Can we stop with the line about unions preventing limbs getting chopped off? There was a time that was relevant however OSHA and the quickness which litigation is thrown around in our society have made that function of unions obsolete today.

.....except in this right to work state, where the governor is advocating abolition of the OSHA board.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/01/kentucky-occupational-safety-health-standards-board-abolished-despite-concerns/870655002/

[Benton]

(08-09-2018, 08:44 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: .....except in this right to work state, where the governor is advocating abolition of the OSHA board.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/01/kentucky-occupational-safety-health-standards-board-abolished-despite-concerns/870655002/

I like begins campaign slogan”make Kentucky 1842 again!”

[Au165]

(08-09-2018, 08:44 AM)Wyche Wrote: .....except in this right to work state, where the governor is advocating abolition of the OSHA board.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/01/kentucky-occupational-safety-health-standards-board-abolished-despite-concerns/870655002/

....except removing the board doesn't remove the regulations in regards to work place safety as it is a federal law mandating safe working environments. This boards job may be overseeing their states general regulations but if the states regulations fall too far away from the standards expected at a federal level they won't be approved, meaning they won't stand.

It also doesn't absolve employers for the liabilities associated with unsafe working conditions.

Again, you don't need unions for safe working environments today. Better or more comfortable maybe, but not safe.

[Benton]

(08-09-2018, 08:33 AM)Au165 Wrote: Can we stop with the line about unions preventing limbs getting chopped off? There was a time that was relevant however OSHA and the quickness which litigation is thrown around in our society have made that function of unions obsolete today.

Republicans have been shrinking niosh and OSHA the last couple years at the federal level, and, as wyche pointed out, there’s some state efforts there.

Personally, it’s one of the reasons I’m in favor of unions, mostly due to a long story about a family member who was injured on the job because the plant was trying to save money on valves. The union reps talked to him and the company, which agreed to replace the faulty valves in lieu of a lawsuit. This was the late 1980s, not 1880s.

[Benton]

(08-09-2018, 08:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: ....except removing the board doesn't remove the regulations in regards to work place safety as it is a federal law mandating safe working environments. This boards job may be overseeing their states general regulations but if the states regulations fall too far away from the standards expected at a federal level they won't be approved, meaning they won't stand.

It also doesn't absolve employers for the liabilities associated with unsafe working conditions.

Again, you don't need unions for safe working environments today. Better or more comfortable maybe, but not safe.

Those agencies, as I mentioned, are shrinking at state and federal levels.

It’s like the approach to immigration: cut funding to inadequate levels so you can say “look, it doesn’t work.”

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2018, 08:26 AM)Benton Wrote: If employees don’t want it, they can vote out of it.

I don’t see how a group comprising of the workers would be considered a third party. You’ve got workers and employers.

Because a job is an agreement between an employer and an employee.  And this probably gets too philosophical to do on a message board, but why is there a special power in the work place to not only vote me into a group, but require something of me?  That would especially be the case for a non-union shop becoming union.  An employer hires me, I work and he pays me, and then I'm told we are voting for a union, and if it passes I'm in it.  From where does that authority derive?  How do they get to vote themselves a say in the terms of my employment?

[Au165]

(08-09-2018, 09:01 AM)Benton Wrote: Republicans have been shrinking niosh and OSHA the last couple years at the federal level, and, as wyche pointed out, there’s some state efforts there.

Personally, it’s one of the reasons I’m in favor of unions, mostly due to a long story about a family member who was injured on the job because the plant was trying to save money on valves. The union reps talked to him and the company, which agreed to replace the faulty valves in lieu of a lawsuit. This was the late 1980s, not 1880s.

We are going to go sideways with this, so I'll simply change the response I had to say...

I disagree with it's need for safety.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-09-2018, 08:52 AM)Benton Wrote: I like begins campaign slogan”make Kentucky 1842 again!”

Yeah....no doubt.  Carpetbagger....

(08-09-2018, 08:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: ....except removing the board doesn't remove the regulations in regards to work place safety as it is a federal law mandating safe working environments. This boards job may be overseeing their states general regulations but if the states regulations fall too far away from the standards expected at a federal level they won't be approved, meaning they won't stand.

It also doesn't absolve employers for the liabilities associated with unsafe working conditions.

Again, you don't need unions for safe working environments today. Better or more comfortable maybe, but not safe.

Not yet anyway.  It just seems like they're pushing it toward a slippery slope.....especially when you look at the policies of the particular state government in question here, and said governor's aspirations for D.C.  Maybe I'm looking too far into it, but something doesn't smell right here......