Minnesota to become a right to work state? (middle-class, wage)

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by kooks35

I didn't realize having a choice could be disgusting

Depends on the choice.

How many so-called "pro-life" advocates think a choice in that context is disgusting, for example?

I personally find it reprehensible that something intended to undermine labor unions is presented as being about "having a choice", since the issue is far more complex than that, but that's just me.

[kooks35]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Depends on the choice.

How many so-called "pro-life" advocates think a choice in that context is disgusting, for example?

I personally find it reprehensible that something intended to undermine labor unions is presented as being about "having a choice", since the issue is far more complex than that, but that's just me.

If the union was so great then wouldn't everyone want to stay with them anyway?

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Depends on the choice.

How many so-called "pro-life" advocates think a choice in that context is disgusting, for example?

I personally find it reprehensible that something intended to undermine labor unions is presented as being about "having a choice", since the issue is far more complex than that, but that's just me.

[I'm not even going to bring abortion into this.]

I will agree that the union problem is more complex than just "having a choice," but the problem is that labor unions are a huge racket (especially public sector). Labor unions collect money from thousands and thousands of people and use it for political advocacy, much of which those very people who are paying for it dislike. [In case you weren't aware--which I am sure you are--take a look at the biggest political campaign contributors over the last few decades: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets.] When there is no right to work, the people involved have no control over what happens with their money. If unions gave that much money to Rick Santorum's campaign, this discussion would be a lot different.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by kooks35

If the union was so great then wouldn't everyone want to stay with them anyway?

As with all things, it depends, and it isn't the only question.

How much additional leverage would this new law give employers to dislodge unions which serve a useful purpose ... let's say its current members want the union to be mandatory to prevent the employer from outsourcing jobs, for example?

The additional "choice" could end up being a disaster for existing employees.

Just because a group of employees has chosen to formally organize as a group for the purpose of negotiation doesn't mean the free market is being bypassed. It just means that employees en masse sometimes have enough leverage to offset management, which is not always a bad thing.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

[I'm not even going to bring abortion into this.]

I will agree that the union problem is more complex than just "having a choice," but the problem is that labor unions are a huge racket (especially public sector). Labor unions collect money from thousands and thousands of people and use it for political advocacy, much of which those very people who are paying for it dislike. [In case you weren't aware--which I am sure you are--take a look at the biggest political campaign contributors over the last few decades: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets.] When there is no right to work, the people involved have no control over what happens with their money. If unions gave that much money to Rick Santorum's campaign, this discussion would be a lot different.

Which is better ... having a few unions control things, or a few individuals?

25% of super PAC money coming from just 5 rich donors

Not all labor unions are a huge racket. Since I've been a part of the airline industry for the past 20+ years (non-union), I always fall back on the pilots union as being one of the classic examples of what I consider to be a very constructive labor union.

The main reason such a union was formed in the first place was SAFETY. Not money. Management wants to cut costs, since the bottom line is their main focus, but it's the pilot sitting in the cockpit with his butt in a sling if something goes wrong, so it was very much in the pilots' best interest to be able to organize and present a united front when telling management "NO" when managers wanted to cut costs to the point where safety became an issue.

I agree that many other established unions have very different histories and may be more problematic, and perhaps some of those would be better off not existing, but as with many discussions, such sweeping generalizations tend to oversimplify the issues.

Besides, people already have a choice. Don't join a union shop. Choose a different career if the one you're considering is heavily unionized. Etc.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Just because a group of employees has chosen to formally organize as a group for the purpose of negotiation doesn't mean the free market is being bypassed. It just means that employees en masse sometimes have enough leverage to offset management, which is not always a bad thing.

Yeah, but right to work laws do not prevent unions from organizing. They simply allow people to work in whatever job they want to without being forced to join a union against their will.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Which is better ... having a few unions control things, or a few individuals?

25% of super PAC money coming from just 5 rich donors

Well, I would say its better to have individuals spending their own money on political advocacy than to have unions extort money with the force of law from helpless workers and then funnel it all to Democrat campaigns. Money isn't controlling things. That USA Today article says that if these super PAC donations weren't coming in, the Republican race would be over (implying that Romney would have closed the deal by now). The only problem with that is that Romney has a lot more campaign money than Santorum, for instance (who is, of course, the biggest challenger). So is it bad that people can take out TV/radio/newspaper ads expressing their opinion of why Romney isn't as good as Santorum or Newt? What's wrong with that? Newspapers do it in their editorial pages all the time anyway. And cable TV personalities and talk radio personalities do it all the time too. Why can't some businessman do it? Just because it's not his day job?

Second (and this is a less important point in my mind, but the USA Today story focused on the PAC money supporting Republicans so I am pointing this out), those stats (if they are even accurate--who knows?) are only tracking from the last 14 months. Wait till the full election cycle has run before analyzing it. I am sure that the majority of the money that individuals spend getting their own messages out there will come from people who have the money to spend (duh), but the not-so-subtle implication is that super PAC money is all Republican money, which is not going to turn out to be true in the general election at all.

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

As with all things, it depends, and it isn't the only question.

How much additional leverage would this new law give employers to dislodge unions which serve a useful purpose ... let's say its current members want the union to be mandatory to prevent the employer from outsourcing jobs, for example?

The additional "choice" could end up being a disaster for existing employees.

Just because a group of employees has chosen to formally organize as a group for the purpose of negotiation doesn't mean the free market is being bypassed. It just means that employees en masse sometimes have enough leverage to offset management, which is not always a bad thing.

Don't see how they would outsource us Public Employees! Might take awhile to get somebody up from Mexico to fix a water main break!

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

How much additional leverage would this new law give employers to dislodge unions which serve a useful purpose ... let's say its current members want the union to be mandatory to prevent the employer from outsourcing jobs, for example?

I don't see right to work as permit to kill unions. the law is not a free pass to nullify existing contracts, throw roadblocks to union organization ... Basically they are giving the individual a choice if they want to participate in a union or not. If the majority of people believe in the union, it will not be disbanded or compromised in terms of leverage.

The real truth on outsourcing is this. It will continue to happen in situations where jobs are portable and businesses are pinched in terms of staying competitive. Union may have some leverage on paper, but at the end of the da this is not going keep jobs here if businesses are going under. Airline industry is pretty good example where the unions did understand they had no real options other than giving some concessions. Other unions have not take that approach. Look at the sugar beet story. That union is a bunch of idiots and now those workers are out a job. I would be mighty hopping mad if I did not have the choice keep my job in that situation. So the leverage thing can and does cut both ways. How cool is this. Union there is now stating they will lobby congress to repeal sugar subsidy. Presumably that money came from union dues. Pretty awesome that they collect dues to undermine subsidy that makes sugar industry viable.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by my54ford

Don't see how they would outsource us Public Employees! Might take awhile to get somebody up from Mexico to fix a water main break!

Outsourcing doesn't always imply international. Maybe someone in a small town in Iowa or Montana could do your job for 1/2 the money?

You're right, tho. If a local physical presence is needed, tho, that's a harder sell. But it could be outsourced to local immigrants willing to work for cheap wages.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Outsourcing doesn't always imply international. Maybe someone in a small town in Iowa or Montana could do your job for 1/2 the money?

You're right, tho. If a local physical presence is needed, tho, that's a harder sell. But it could be outsourced to local immigrants willing to work for cheap wages.

yes - outsourcing can be offshore or local or somewhere else in the US. If your wage/salary is higher than what somebody else will do the work for, it could put your job at risk. These small towns in low tax states have really low cost of living, so in fact a lot of jobs are going to places like Sioux Falls. 50% less? - yes it could be that high. Union can write language in contract to prevent this, but at the end of the day the job will be gone.

I actually tried to get setup where I could do my job from Northern MN. Did not work out, but I still think there is potential something like that will be doable in the future. At the moment, corporate culture is not always ready for the unsupervised approach, but it is becoming more common every year.