GrandWazoo
Robert ReichReminder: So-called "right-to-work" laws are all about weakening unions rather than giving workers more rights.
These laws keep wages lower for all workers in the states where they've been enacted.
Don't be fooled by the name.
Awk & sha@rbreich that article ends with a quote that really drives the point home:
‘“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights," Martin Luther King said in 1961 about these laws.‘
SilvertipGrizz@rbreich ………. the right to work for less.
loucovey@rbreich Generally I agree, but I have been rejected for jobs at multiple companies in my life because a union would not accept more members. Unions need to look at their own past practices to understand why they have lost influence.
Grassroots Joe@joeinwynnewood @rbreich UFCW was the first. Then came HERE, Teamsters, and TNG-CWA was the last.
@Loucovey @rbreich Please help me out because I really don't understand.
Are you saying existing contracts limited the number of union employees working at the site where the employer wanted to hire you?
I'm not an expert on bargaining units; 2 flavors I've experienced, 100% union shop, you get hired you're in the bargaining unit/union; full-time temporary (summer job) not in the union, but if hired permanent, then in the union. Is there some other flavor I'm unaware of?
@joeinwynnewood @rbreich Keep in mind that all my experiences happened before I turned 23 and I’m 70 now. But for example, on the first one I was hired as a box boy at age 16 at a local supermarket. The head of the union paid a visit to the store and saw me, asking who I was. The store manager said I was just a summer hire. The union guy said, “Nope, if get rid of him” I asked if I could join the union and he said it was a “full shop”. So I was gone.
@Loucovey @rbreich That sounds like a contract that does not permit full time temp non-union hiring and certainly not of teenagers. I doubt any union would, take a 16 year old, probably can't. You couldn't sign the required papers; a parent would have to sign, and that doesn't work for a union agreement.
@joeinwynnewood @rbreich I guess. But when I graduated from San Jose State and offered a full time job at the San Jose Mercury News, the guild nixed it. Couldn’t work for a guild paper unless I was already a guild member and I couldn’t be a guild member unless I was already employed at a guild paper.
@joeinwynnewood @rbreich I hope you’re gratified that I raised a union-member son and in spite of my history. But his union has still failed to find him full time work.
@Loucovey @rbreich Again, this doesn't sound right. Union shops require union membership, sure, but if there's an opening for a union job and you're offered the job you join the union. The only partial exception I'm aware of is when training/apprenticeship is required and still, if you qualify the path is there, for example - https://ibewcco.org/apprenticeship/
@joeinwynnewood @rbreich is that your experience between 1960 and 1975?
@joeinwynnewood @rbreich during that period unions experienced a significant level of corruption, which contributed to their decline in membership and public trust. I’m sure they’ve done the work to overcome those mistakes and crimes, but that’s why is said they share in the reasons for their decline
@joeinwynnewood @rbreich we obviously have different experiences with mine predating yours. Neither experience negates the other. Both are valid. I hope the historic perspective helps
@joeinwynnewood @rbreich jftr, even though I was offered jobs even without union membership, I did not take them since I support the idea of unions. Still left a bad taste in my mouth
TQdemocrat@rbreich It is difficult to feel sorry for these the people living in these red states. They are voting for these clowns.
IowaCityBob@rbreich
Right to work for less.
Right to work for less.
Daph (she/her)@rbreich “Right to work” should be called “Right to replace” because that’s what employees who talk about workers’ rights get, fired and replaced.
Ferfer72@rbreich "Right to work" means "right to fire for no reason".
Cyndi@rbreich Cradle to grave. Corporate America could care less about American workers.
Itwasntme@rbreich ok. Thanks
EarthlingIt should be called the
right-to-be-exploited law
ideaPDish@rbreich
So, If I have to select from any company in my field, and they all have onerously restrictive employment contract, where I waive my natural rights and freedoms, but I have to work, because I have to pay rent, am I voluntarily selling myself into slavery?
Does it violate the 13th amendment?
Onerous, meaning curtailing my right to speak freely, by NDA, freedom of association, by non-compete, and right to fair trial by forced arbitration, clauses, violating my constitutional rights.
KitKatToes agree!
Unions were put in place for rank and file workers to have representation. It is important they progress and still stay strong.
@rbreich How does it weaken Unions? Taking away their ability to prevent other people from being hired? If Microsoft was shutting down competition like that you'd bust them for anti-trust.
Quasar@rbreich It's sad that people fall for catchy names and assume they are good laws. It's like "citizens united".
bobchauvin
Primary Colors: DaGradi Studio@rbreich More aptly named the “right-to-starve” law.