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.
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.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
