# Right to work law part 2



## brother (Nov 25, 2008)

I was doing more right to work laws research to learn more about them. I understand some don't like unions, but for those that live in right to work states, and if you favor the right to work laws, do you think it's fair for a union to still be obligated to represent you and you get the benefits, seniority, etc.. from the union when you do not support it?? Please just give your honest opinion on this, either yes or no and explain why. Thanks. 



Under federal labor law and the state's Right to Work law, you have the right to resign from membership in a union at any time. If you resign from membership, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. If you resign, you cannot be disciplined by the union for any post-resignation conduct. 

*If you resign from union membership, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union remains obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pension, health insurance) will not be affected by your resignation. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)*


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

You must lead an exciting life, to be doomed to research RTW laws.:laughing:

I know this makes many a union member cry when they read that, but I'd bet more union member fret over this than there are actually open shop workers affected by this one sentence. Take Davis Bacon as a swap for this one sentence and you are more than paid back for all the trials and tribulations you suffered for the workers of America.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

brian john said:


> Take Davis Bacon as a swap for this one sentence and you are more than paid back for all the trials and tribulations you suffered for the workers of America.


Great point. :thumbsup:


----------



## brother (Nov 25, 2008)

brian john said:


> You must lead an exciting life, to be doomed to research RTW laws.:laughing:.


I'm glad you're sooo concerned about me leading an exciting life :thumbup:, it makes me warm and fuzzy inside. As for the real reason, I get tired of hearing people talk about these laws and they really don't know about them. I wanted to *educate myself *over it so I would not be as foolish as some of the people (both union and non union) that speak about some thing they really don't know anything about! That's just dumb in my opinion. Nothing wrong in wanting to educate ones self. 




brian john said:


> I know this makes many a union member cry when they read that, but I'd bet more union member fret over this than there are actually open shop workers affected by this one sentence. Take Davis Bacon as a swap for this one sentence and you are more than paid back for all the trials and tribulations you suffered for the workers of America.


I cannot say more are fretting in one way or another, and as for the Davis Bacon law, it's my understanding that only deals with government federally funded projects, so it's application is limited. Just how often do think everyones area get a big federally funded project?? Unlike the right to work law that is applicable whereever there is a union (or state) under this law. 

Also, it's my understanding that anyone working on the Davis Bacon projects get a higher wage, whether union or non union, wouldn't that be a good thing?? I cannot see them being really compared to each other when you read the laws, basically apples and oranges. 

Now back to my original question, 

*for those that live in right to work states, and if you favor the right to work laws, do you think it's fair for a union to still be obligated to represent you and you get the benefits, seniority, etc.. from the union when you do not support it?? Please just give your honest opinion on this, either yes or no and explain why. Thanks. *

putting aside your sarcasm and smart alike comments , I would like hear your honest opinion on the topic at hand. Thanks.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

I support a person's right not to contribute to a political action committee if they don't want to.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

brother said:


> I
> Al*so, it's my understanding that anyone working on the Davis Bacon projects get a higher wage, whether union or non union, wouldn't that be a good thing?? *I cannot see them being really compared to each other when you read the laws, basically apples and oranges.
> 
> s.



No it artificially inflates a projects cost at the taxpayers expense.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

brother said:


> *for those that live in right to work states, and if you favor the right to work laws, do you think it's fair for a union to still be obligated to represent you and you get the benefits, seniority, etc.. from the union when you do not support it?? Please just give your honest opinion on this, either yes or no and explain why. Thanks. *
> 
> putting aside your sarcasm and smart alike comments , I would like hear your honest opinion on the topic at hand. Thanks.


It simplifies operation for management, why would management want to enter into multiple employment contracts when one is in place. 

For the union it cost them nothing extra though they do lose some dues, that some workers DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO PAY.

As for putting aside sarcasm, heck you might as well close ET down if we have to withhold our wit and wisdom :whistling2:


Fair and unions seldom play into any negotiations, NLRB is hardly fair. Davis Bacon is hardly fair to the taxpayers. Forcing a firm to negotiate away their control to unions can be construed as hardly fair (BY SOME). Blocking a business is hardly fair. Intentionally sabotaging a EC's truck because you think they are stealing your work is hardly fair>The union taking a 5.00 raise as the country falls into a recession is hardly fair.Locking out employees is hardly fair. Exporting jobs overseas is hardly fair. But all this happens.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> I support a person's right not to contribute to a political action committee if they don't want to.



Like it or not I think it has something to do with free speech. Funny thing is green weenies dislike business pacs while they want special exceptions for their pac and this is true for any group you can think of.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

Could you cite the source for your statement that the union remains obligated to represent you if you're not a member?

Ditto for wages, benefits, etc. If you're not a member, I would think that you are not a party to the contract, and that your compensation could be anything. If the membership is getting $30/hr, what's to prevent the non-member from contracting for $45 - or $25? Where is the employer bound to consider seniority, etc., for the non-members? Source, please.

It is possible for unions to have something of value for their members. If the hall sponsors a class that gets their members, say, the OSHA card or CAT-5 certification, there is no obligation to let non-members take it.

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. I have called employers in 'right to work' states, and their response has sometimes been 'we only hire through the hall.' Now, maybe I'm a bit fuzzy, but I can't imagine the IBEW hall sending them non-members. Maybe I'm wrong; please enlighten me.

Because 'right to work' and 'at will' employment seems to work both ways. That is, an employer is still free to 'choose' to only hire union guys, and is completely 'at will' to not hire non-members. Nod, nod .... wink, wink. In such a situation, I'm not certain just how a non-hired person would assert their right to be considered; it's a safe bet the EEOW isn't going to be too concerned.

Editorial comment: Had the union relied more upon the value they have to offer both their members, and the employers, there would not be the bad feelings today. Instead, guys increasingly see their 'dues' monies going to politicians they don't like and to support causes of which they do not approve. Small wonder the natives are restless. 

I wish more people looked at a union card and thought "now I can be sure this guy knows his trade." Far too many folks think "gee, he must have an uncle in the union" instead.

Likewise, unions lose a lot of sympathy regarding RTW every time some hopeful tries to enter the trade, only to be given the brush-off by the union. The whole idea of 'apprentiship' is presented as an affront to dignity, rather than as an exceptional training opportunity.

Personally ... I tested well, and got 'on the list' decades ago. Since then, I've got my training elsewhere, and received my licenses and diplomas. AFAIK, if I called the hall they would still tell me I was 'on the list, and progressing nicely.' In thier enthusiasm to show me just how unimportant I am to them, they set me up as their competition. Where's the sense in that? Looks to me like they stepped on their own peckers.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Amish Electrician said:


> ....Personally ... I tested well, and got 'on the list' decades ago. Since then, I've got my training elsewhere, and received my licenses and diplomas. AFAIK, if I called the hall they would still tell me I was 'on the list, and progressing nicely.' In thier enthusiasm to show me just how unimportant I am to them, they set me up as their competition. Where's the sense in that? Looks to me like they stepped on their own peckers.


I often wonder: If it's the stated goal of the union for all tradesmen to be organized, why does it seem so hard for new guys to get an apprenticeship and seasoned guys to become members (even if only given partial credit for time in the trade)? It hardly seems fair to have a 'rat electrician' looked down upon, when truly the opportunity for him to be in the IBEW doesn't actually exist.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> I often wonder: If it's the stated goal of the union for all tradesmen to be organized, why does it seem so hard for new guys to get an apprenticeship and seasoned guys to become members (even if only given partial credit for time in the trade)? It hardly seems fair to have a 'rat electrician' looked down upon, when truly the opportunity for him to be in the IBEW doesn't actually exist.


 
To continue, the opportunity for employment must exist for open shop men, otherwise there would not be so many open shop workers earning a living.

Not sure why the IBEW does not capitalize on this. If indeed all workers were signed, employers would only have one hiring pool.


----------



## brother (Nov 25, 2008)

Amish Electrician said:


> Could you cite the source for your statement that the union remains obligated to represent you if you're not a member?.


It's from the main website for National right to Work. funny how they put it up so all can see.

http://www.nrtw.org/d/rtwempl.htm

http://righttoworkisbad.com/ this link is from the other side of the arguement.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MDShunk said:


> I often wonder: If it's the stated goal of the union for all tradesmen to be organized, why does it seem so hard for new guys to get an apprenticeship and seasoned guys to become members (even if only given partial credit for time in the trade)? It hardly seems fair to have a 'rat electrician' looked down upon, when truly the opportunity for him to be in the IBEW doesn't actually exist.


it's called capitalism, which is not to be confused with a meritocracy











~CS~


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

brother said:


> It's from the main website for National right to Work. funny how they put it up so all can see.
> 
> http://www.nrtw.org/d/rtwempl.htm
> 
> http://righttoworkisbad.com/ this link is from the other side of the arguement.


Your as biased as CNN :no: :no: :no:


----------



## JohnR (Apr 12, 2010)

What I don't like about the "right to work" law, is the name. It implies that there are some who don't have any right to work. I understand that that may not be the intent, just the implication of the name.
It tells me that if I am not Union, and support this, that I don't have a right to go out and work. Don't like that at all.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

JohnR said:


> What I don't like about the "right to work" law, is the name. It implies that there are some who don't have any right to work. I understand that that may not be the intent, just the implication of the name.
> It tells me that if I am not Union, and support this, that I don't have a right to go out and work. Don't like that at all.


The "Work at will" nomenclature exposes a similar conundrum.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

JohnR said:


> What I don't like about the "right to work" law, is the name. It implies that there are some who don't have any right to work. I understand that that may not be the intent, just the implication of the name.
> It tells me that if I am not Union, and support this, that I don't have a right to go out and work. Don't like that at all.


Yet John, if it was 100% union you may well not have the right to work in your chosen profession. The union limits the number of working electricians and you may not be able to get a membership. John you are in Baltimore how many men in your local? How hard does the union recruit trying to grow?


----------



## brother (Nov 25, 2008)

19kilosparky984 said:


> Your as biased as CNN :no: :no: :no:


 How you figure? I simply posted the link I got the source from and the other pro side of the arguement. 

So both views are presented? lol. Thanks for comparing me to a big news company, I feel I made it big time.


----------



## JohnR (Apr 12, 2010)

brian john said:


> Yet John, if it was 100% union you may well not have the right to work in your chosen profession. The union limits the number of working electricians and you may not be able to get a membership. John you are in Baltimore how many men in your local? How hard does the union recruit trying to grow?


Brian, that could be, IDK. I am not in Baltimore, I am in Connecticut, not union either. :laughing: My brother is however. or- was, laid off now looking at a 2 year wait.:no: Times are tough we do our best.:thumbsup:

Oh, and my reply had nothing at all to do with the fact that I am non-union, that is just circumstantial. Just a point of view.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

JohnR said:


> Brian, that could be, IDK. I am not in Baltimore, I am in Connecticut, not union either. :laughing: My brother is however. or- was, laid off now looking at a 2 year wait.:no: Times are tough we do our best.:thumbsup:
> 
> Oh, and my reply had nothing at all to do with the fact that I am non-union, that is just circumstantial. Just a point of view.



But RIGHT TO WORK, the term; has to do with the fact that many open shop men could not get in a union, and therefore would not be able to work in a profession of their choice.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

Right to work is a big issue in Wisconsin right now and has people taking sides. Kinda funny though to try to get people's sympathy by defacing our beautiful capitol building and hiring protestors to protest for you. (at least I hope the average person protesting wasn't a actual teacher) Saw a couple of them sitting out by the curb. Dressed in a kinda retro-hippie style and beating on a drum. Tum Tum Tum Tum Tum. Why not re-direct that effort and get a job. Contrary to popular belief, there are still jobs available, you just need more than a pulse!!


----------



## JDJ (Aug 9, 2011)

MDShunk said:


> I often wonder: If it's the stated goal of the union for all tradesmen to be organized, why does it seem so hard for new guys to get an apprenticeship and seasoned guys to become members (even if only given partial credit for time in the trade)? It hardly seems fair to have a 'rat electrician' looked down upon, when truly the opportunity for him to be in the IBEW doesn't actually exist.


It's an issue some of us constantly go back to. We preach a unity. Yet there is still a resistance to putting our money where our mouth is. Too many hard heads who are stuck in the 60's / 70's and maybe even 80's. Too much "if you didn't come up through the apprenticeship you ain't s**t " mentality. It's been stated many times before. In a lot of ways the union is it's own worst enemy. The intent is good.The concept ideal. The human factor f's it up. As for it being hard to get an apprenticeship MD , I dunno about that. Seen quite a few people get in the apprenticeship that really have no business being there. They have created new paths to getting in. Just not sure the ideas are quite right yet.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

JDJ said:


> It's an issue some of us constantly go back to. We preach a unity. Yet there is still a resistance to putting our money where our mouth is. Too many hard heads who are stuck in the 60's / 70's and maybe even 80's. Too much "if you didn't come up through the apprenticeship you ain't s**t " mentality. It's been stated many times before. In a lot of ways the union is it's own worst enemy. The intent is good.The concept ideal. The human factor f's it up. As for it being hard to get an apprenticeship MD , I dunno about that. Seen quite a few people get in the apprenticeship that really have no business being there. They have created new paths to getting in. Just not sure the ideas are quite right yet.


Right on the mark


----------

