Missouri Voters Overturn Right-To-Work Measure

[Dill]

(08-08-2018, 09:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

What if an employer has only two employees, and they agree to form a union. Would that union be a 3rd party? Would one worker who speaks for the two be a 3rd party in that representative role?

Seems to me that all employees already have a certain power to "dictate" rules of employment when they will not work for less than a certain amount. If an employer cannot find bricklayers who will work for 10 dollars an hour, then those potential employees are dictating terms of employment.  

The union just enhances this already existing power of labor, creating benefits that spill over to non union workers as well, like the 40 hr week. Where wages sink so low as to affect a worker's ability to provide food and shelter for him/herself and family, and the worker has only the "right" to quit and accept another equally low paying job with another employer, unions "make sense" to workers.

"Right to work" laws were not designed to enhance employee freedom, but to restrict it by keeping as much control over wages and hiring/firing in the hands of the employer.