Ok, so I'm reading the local paper and I see that Monday, a debate took place in Harrisburg among GOP candidates over whether or not PA should become a "Right to Work" state. From my understanding of the article, becoming a Right to Work state would eliminate the requirement that a person has to pay into a union if they want to be employed with companies where unions are present.
While I generally agree with this, and again, I need more information, what I don't agree with is a blanket approach to having Right to Work laws.
Right now, Rob has an opportunity to get employment with a company where he would literally double his hourly pay. However, he would have to pay union dues. We have no idea how much they are or what union he would be with or the benefits he would get to giving up part of his pay every week. So it's hard to run the numbers to even see it if would put us in a better position for him to take the job or not.

It just seems like to me, forcing someone to be part of a union just to be able to work at certain places, isn't right and it keeps him from getting a better paying job as a result.

I'd like some feedback on this issue to better help me understand it. Evidently democrats are not in favor of this and they have backing from the AFL-CIO, while republicans are in favor of it and I would like to know why that is as well.

Let's keep this civil please. I'm honestly trying to gain some knowledge here as it will make the difference in whether or not he goes out of state in favor of a better paying job.

The only way unions work is if people pay into them, and unions make the middle class stronger. So I'm not sure why people would complain, except in buying into the propaganda of the rich so they have less power to prevent wage slavery. Reagan busted up the unions. Now the minimum wage has stagnated, and the middle class is shrinking if not practically gone.

Okay I can see that, but a number of years ago, the local Teamsters union (a truckers union) came in and persuaded the employees of the Preston 151 Line to allow them in and within 8 weeks, the company went under.

I can understand unions for public servants like teachers, police and fire fighters. But what happens when a union comes into a publicly traded company, makes ridiculous demands and then the company goes under because it can't afford to keep up with the demands of the union workers? Or, worse yet - union employees decide to not do their jobs. Shipyard employees in New Jersey do this. I've seen it myself and they act lazy and hold up drivers who have to get their trucks loaded.

How can we make things better for everyone involved so that no one can take advantage of either side?

It's a lose-lose situation. Unions leaders get rich off from running the unions. But if you don't have unions, you have less bargaining power. The worker gets screwed either way.

That's the sort of blanketing I was talking about. I don't think that's the case where civil servants are concerned. Private companies, maybe, depending on the union.

Some unions deserve the bad rap that they get. Others, no.

From my limited understanding, Unions protect workers while in right to work states the workers get majorly screwed by corporations and employers.

(April 17, 2018 at 11:56 am)henryp Wrote: It's a lose-lose situation.  Unions leaders get rich off from running the unions.  But if you don't have unions, you have less bargaining power.  The worker gets screwed either way.

True, but corporate scumbags get rich from oppressing the workers without one.  The issue is the depth of the screwing.  The union's job is to stop the company from shoving their dicks all the way up the workers' asses.

Fair point, but that doesn't answer why some unions screw their workers.

"Right to work" laws really should be called, "Let the rich fuck you over" laws.

---

(April 17, 2018 at 12:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(April 17, 2018 at 11:56 am)henryp Wrote: It's a lose-lose situation.  Unions leaders get rich off from running the unions.  But if you don't have unions, you have less bargaining power.  The worker gets screwed either way.

True, but corporate scumbags get rich from oppressing the workers without one.  The issue is the depth of the screwing.  The union's job is to stop the company from shoving their dicks all the way up the workers' asses.

To be fair, unions can go off the rails too. This doesn't even have to be about unions, but anything humans do, regardless of position.

Humans do everything. We run private businesses, we run religions, we run political parties, we run governments. Any one of those categories if left with no checks on it, by themselves or in combo with others, can rise to an abusive monopoly.

The key in an open society isn't either/ or but BALANCE in anti monopoly concepts.

I would only agree at this point in history corporations are very abusive right now. It isn't that every individual in them is bad, but just that the climate is lopsided to the top. Workers have not had the level of power they once had during the post WW2 boom, and we should get back to to that.

It still amounts to power for any sect of society and keeping a check on that power.

(April 17, 2018 at 12:12 pm)Joods Wrote: Fair point,  but that doesn't answer why some unions screw their workers.

It is a mistake to expect perfection in human institutions.

I recall an interview with one worker, somewhere in the mid-west.  The company had announced draconian cuts in wages and benefits and the union was resisting... of course.  The reporter asked what good it would be if the company closed and he had no job.  His reply was along the lines of "they want to reduce this to a $10/ hour job with no health insurance.  I can easily replace that job.  What I can't replace is the job I have now and the company is threatening that."