RTW

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The problem with RTW is that the non paying employee enjoys the same benefits as the dues paying employee and also the union must represent these free loaders.  A fair scenario would be that the non dues paying employee is not protected by the union.  This was not included in the law because those who wrote it knew it would hurt the unions and the dues paying members.  It is one sided.  This is like you showing up at Tulsa Country Club and demanding a tee time and getting one in front of a dues paying member of the club.  The same people who made this law have memberships to these country clubs and are not going to let you or I play a round without paying the dues.  Hypocrites.  AA is a closed shop and since we are international this state law does not affect us.  If it did the TWU would be even weaker than they are now.

OldGuy@AA you never answered my questions.
 
Do you think you have seen any benefit to being in a closed shop?
 
Do you feel it is right to force an employee to join and pay a failure UNION as a condition of employment?
 
I am honestly interested in your answer.
 
As far as the second question you have made clear you feel people that don't pay UNION dues but benefit from the UNION are freeloaders. That is understood. What I am asking specifically is how you justify forcing someone to join a UNION and pay dues as a condition of employment when the UNION has failed to perform their primary function for over a decade.

 

[southwind]

The problem with RTW is that the non paying employee enjoys the same benefits as the dues paying employee and also the union must represent these free loaders.  A fair scenario would be that the non dues paying employee is not protected by the union.  This was not included in the law because those who wrote it knew it would hurt the unions and the dues paying members.  It is one sided.  This is like you showing up at Tulsa Country Club and demanding a tee time and getting one in front of a dues paying member of the club.  The same people who made this law have memberships to these country clubs and are not going to let you or I play a round without paying the dues.  Hypocrites.  AA is a closed shop and since we are international this state law does not affect us.  If it did the TWU would be even weaker than they are now.

And just why should I be "FORCED" to join an organization I might not want to be a part of, in order to retain employment, if a union is on the premises?

Or are you saying I might need to look elsewhere for employment?

 

[southwind]

OldGuy@AA you never answered my questions.
 
Do you think you have seen any benefit to being in a closed shop?
 
Do you feel it is right to force an employee to join and pay a failure UNION as a condition of employment?
 
I am honestly interested in your answer.
 
As far as the second question you have made clear you feel people that don't pay UNION dues but benefit from the UNION are freeloaders. That is understood. What I am asking specifically is how you justify forcing someone to join a UNION and pay dues as a condition of employment when the UNION has failed to perform their primary function for over a decade.

Wonder if all your negatives were clicked by pro union peeps?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Wonder if all your negatives were clicked by pro union peeps?

Probably.
 
I knew my viewpoint on this subject would be unpopular on a forum filled with UNION employees so it is hardly a surprise patrons have made liberal use of the

 button.
 
That does not mean I don't have a valid point though.
 
Honestly the only interest I have at this point is to see OldGuy@AA's answer.
 
He seems like a pretty intelligent guy judging from his past posts. I am interested to hear the logic that drives his viewpoint on this matter.
 
So far he has either not seen the post or has declined to respond.

 

[700UW]

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/22/right-work-debunked-economists-find-anti-worker-laws-lead-lower-wages

 

Contradicting arguments typically used to advance so-called Right to Work legislation, new research from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) shows that wages and benefits are actually lower in states with such anti-worker laws on the books.
 
The paper, released as part of EPI's Raising America's Pay project, finds that the negative impact of Right to Work (RTW) laws—which undercut unions by allowing workers to benefit from collective bargaining without having to pay dues—translates to $1,558 less a year in earnings for a typical full-time worker.
 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

translates to $1,558 less a year in earnings for a typical full-time worker.

TWU has given away many times that.

 

[Buck]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/24/union-cancels-boeing-vote-says-gun-toting-workers-told-it-to-take-off/

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

TWU has given away many times that.

-3 
 
Truth hurt?

 

[700UW]

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

 
Yet another falsity brought to you by another liberal. 
 
It is not the poor people working 40+ hours a week that need assistance people have a problem with, it is the people who work some B.S. 20 hour part time job and hold their hand out their whole life or worse don't even attempt to work at all.
 
Keep selling your fantasy 700UW. 

 

[700UW]

 

[SparrowHawk]

Fiar Currency, Study Economics, learn how money works.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_Zqbg6QThg

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Sounds like he describing Bloomberg to me.

 

[700UW]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-imf-agrees-loss-of-union-power-20150325-column.html
 

 




IMF agrees: Decline of union power has increased income inequality

 

[delldude]

Why don't people care to be unionized is the question.
Is that why unions are trick ####ing people into unionization ?