DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Forum
HTML https://thewiforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: State and local topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19295--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: Jeepers
Date: March 1, 2015, 1:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...its easy to say if you don't want to be in a union then
don't work at a place that has a union. I'm a RN and I used to
live in a small town consisting of a small hospital and a
nursing home....both were unionized. My other option was to
drive 75 miles to work at a hospital that wasn't unionized.
#Post#: 19296--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: March 1, 2015, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jeepers link ---
>
> Yeah...its easy to say if you don't want to be in a union then
don't work at a place that has a union. I'm a RN and I used to
live in a small town consisting of a small hospital and a
nursing home....both were unionized. My other option was to
drive 75 miles to work at a hospital that wasn't unionized.
>
--- End Quote ---
So you had a choice but didn't like it. The state needs to fix
that for you at the expense of those who DO want an effective
union?
I get what it's like when employment opportunities aren't
exactly what you want, but it's my problem to fix, not the
state's.
Funny thing is, when it's wages or benefits being discussed,
"if you don't like it, work elsewhere" seems a reasonable plan.
It is here too.
#Post#: 19299--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: trollslayer
Date: March 1, 2015, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> So you had a choice but didn't like it. The state needs to
fix that for you at the expense of those who DO want an
effective union?
--- End Quote ---
You don't have an argument here Rapids. Those who do want an
effective union are still able to join and have a union and work
towards it being effective. That's their choice. It's not as
effective because those who wish for the option of not being in
the union aren't funding it. Funny how some think you should
have a choice to kill a baby baby but not opt out of a union.
#Post#: 19301--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: Notso
Date: March 1, 2015, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> That is exactly my point. It should be your choice. You make
that choice when you decide where to work.
> If you don't like the pay, go elsewhere. If you don't like
the benefits, go elsewhere. If you don't want to join the
union, go elsewhere. Funny thing is y'all scream when the
left wants to regulate the first two things, but applaud when
the right regulates the third. :D
>
> Back to choices. The state is removing your choice to join a
strong, effective union.
> You can join a powerless social club that's unable to bargain
on your behalf if you like, but it is not the same thing. What's
left are unions in name only.
>
> Truth be told, I'm really not a huge union fan. My industry
is heavily unionized in some areas (CWA, IBEW) and I've always
avoided joining.
> It's pretty easy to not join a union if you don't want to,
don't apply at union shops. 90% of jobs in this state are NOT
unionized. Pick one. You really don't need big brother to step
in.
> The left demonizes the wealthy and the right demonizes labor
unions. Perhaps best if neither gets to destroy their enemy.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I am a union member, kinda happy with the them and pay about one
percent.
Not sure I would characterize RTW as regulating the third. True
it's a law, but seems to me what it really does is exempt some
from federal law and regulation. The rules of a union are not
decided by the membership, they are decided by the NLRB.
One of the talking points I hear from anti-RTW folk is non union
members will benefit from the unions negotiating without paying
for it, that's cause federal law forces the employer to only
negotiate with the union if one is in place.
Not sure if it's true but another talking point I keep hearing
is the union will be forced to defend a non member from
disciplinary actions. Once again, a requirement of the NLRB,
not RTW.
I have not made up my mind, not that it matters what I think.
But it's clear to me some want to keep Federal regulation intact
and others want State regulation that helps avoid some of the
Federal regulations. State politicians can't change federal law
so might be they have add their own regulations to take the edge
off.
#Post#: 19303--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: March 1, 2015, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: trollslayer link ---
>
> You don't have an argument here Rapids. Those who do want an
effective union are still able to join and have a union and work
towards it being effective. That's their choice. It's not as
effective because those who wish for the option of not being in
the union aren't funding it. Funny how some think you should
have a choice to kill a baby baby but not opt out of a union.
>
--- End Quote ---
What do you not understand about a union that represents only a
fraction of the workforce having no power? If 10 people at GM
strike, does anybody care?
It has to be all, or a large majority of the workforce to be
effective. If you don't want to be part of that workforce, then
don't. You have a choice. The union workers you screwed do
not.
Nice strawman on abortion.
#Post#: 19304--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: March 1, 2015, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Notso link ---
>
> But it's clear to me some want to keep Federal regulation
intact and others want State regulation that helps avoid some of
the Federal regulations. State politicians can't change federal
law so might be they have add their own regulations to take the
edge off.
>
--- End Quote ---
In this case RTW laws deliberately leverage federal law to crush
unions. RTW authors know federal law requires unions to
represent those who do not pay. That's the whole attraction to
this. If you wanted to kill a grocery store, make it illegal
for grocery stores to require payment for the things you take!
Pretending this is a pure bill that only intends to help workers
is being deliberately blind.
What percent of workers have to vote affirmatively to bring a
union into a workplace? I assume it's a majority?
#Post#: 19306--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: trollslayer
Date: March 1, 2015, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> What do you not understand about a union that represents only
a fraction of the workforce having no power? If 10 people at GM
strike, does anybody care?
> It has to be all, or a large majority of the workforce to be
effective. If you don't want to be part of that workforce, then
don't. You have a choice. The union workers you screwed do
not.
>
> Nice strawman on abortion.
>
--- End Quote ---
No straw man, why should you have a choice to kill a baby, but
not to get out of a union?
#Post#: 19308--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: March 1, 2015, 8:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: trollslayer link ---
>
> No straw man, why should you have a choice to kill a baby, but
not to get out of a union?
>
--- End Quote ---
They are completely unrelated issues, the first of which nobody
except you brought up.
--- Quote ---
> A straw man argument occurs in the context of a
debate―formal or informal―when one side attacks a
position―the "straw man"―not held by the other side
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 19311--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: Mr.steve
Date: March 1, 2015, 8:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Rapids but I just can not understand your defending of
unions when you claim to have avoided joining a union. If you
"avoided joining" there must be some small part of you that is
celebrating Wisconsin acting on protecting states rights. ;)
#Post#: 19312--------------------------------------------------
Re: RTW
DIR By: Jeepers
Date: March 2, 2015, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe federal law should not require unions to represent non
union due paying employees. I would be fine with that. Let those
employees who don't want to be in a union fend for themselves.
With that being said...if the employer wants to reward non union
members with higher wages and/or better benefits because they
feel those employees earned it....then the unions better not
raise a stink and demand equal pay and benefits for the union
members just because they pay dues.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page