It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

National Right to Work Act Introduced to End Forced Union Dues

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:19 PM
U.S. Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) has submitted a bill for consideration.

It simply says to eliminate unions from requiring dues and membership for workers that don't want to be members of a union at their job.

This must the "closed shop" rule that many States recognize.

Many States do not recognize the rule and have "Right to Work" laws in place.

This is controversial and may affect Public sector unions as well as Private sector unions.

Well which way is best?

BOOM! National Right to Work Act Introduced to End Forced Union Dues

The bill's status is "Introduced" and will be discussed in Committee

While this certainly will garner a Presidential veto if passed, it only takes 67 Senate votes to override said presidential veto.

via the National Right To Work Committee:

Washington, DC (January 29, 2015) –Today, Congressman Steve King (Republican-Iowa) along with 76 cosponsors introduced the National Right to Work Act (H.R. 612) in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The one page bill would end Big Labor’s federally-authorized power to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement praising the introduction of the bill:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:21 PM
The unions were on their way out anyway...this would just be one more nail in the coffin...

They used to make sense but anymore they're overpriced & overrated
edit on 29-1-2015 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:43 PM
I partially agree with this.
Unions, as they stand now, are a relic of the past, but they also serve a purpose.
If the law was written so that neither the Companies nor the Unions could mandate rule for membership and it was solely the workers choice, I would have a better feeling about this. But this is setting it up so that the companies can just say that they can require their employees to stay away from Unions as part of their job and reserve the right to fire them if they try to form one.

+5 more 
posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:50 PM
Union Sheetmetal Worker here.

Why is it that Americans are bitching about low pay and low standard of living, but do everything in their power to crush the one thing that fights for their rights?

The ignorance astounds me.

Seriously, you don't think that non union shop owners aren't making as much or more than union owners? The only difference is that they pocket the money that the workers are not getting.

Union dues are not the issue, it is greedy business owners that don't want to pay a fair wage.

Doesn't anybody see the irony here, bust the unions, pay less, less standard of living for the worker, all while the boss makes more pocket coin?

Over paid? schooling to be able to pick up a set of prints and build a 10 story building, to code, and quality that backs up the hard work,is that worth mminimum wage? Is that worth $25,000 a year.

Please tell me what the scale set forth by the government says that a salary must be to live comfortably? What number should one make a year to construct the infrastucture of this great nation?

Is $50,000 -$60,000 a year too much?

What the hell is wrong with people?

edit on 29-1-2015 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:11 PM
Unions do work well to pay their employees a fair salary, train the apprentices, and arguably the most important they do provide a pension to members who have paid their dues and worked long enough or became disabled on the job. This is why unions are still popular to some.

The concern is for union funds to be mismanaged and unable to meet their obligations to their workers. Kind of like what is happening to the social security fund that all US workers pay into.

I will add, I do not see a point in a union for some trades, like a simple cashier. The Unions that are still strong are mostly dangerous skilled jobs that often do not require a college degree, instead a tenure as an apprentice.
edit on 29-1-2015 by jrod because: a

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:39 PM

Why is it that Americans are bitching about low pay and low standard of living, but do everything in their power to crush the one thing that fights for their rights?

Because they don't care about other people, plain and simple.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:46 PM
Without my unions I have no health care plan, no retirement, no recourse if hurt on the job, no credit union etc....


Now they want to take even that away? My union dues are nothing compared to what I receive in benefits.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:46 PM
In 2011, the Economic Policy Institute found the average salary of all full-time workers was 3.2% less in RTW states than in states without RTW laws. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In 2014, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earningsof $970

In states with RTW laws, there's also less employer-sponsored health insurance, less tuition reimbursement, far less employer-sponsored pensions, etc. A 2012 report on workplace safety from the AFL-CIO found that the rate of workplace deaths is 36% higher in RTW states. Despite the fact that nationwide, the federal government operates open shops, unionization of federal employees is increasing.

Taft-Hartley made it possible almost 70 years ago for state legislatures to pass the RTW laws that currently exist in 24 states. So what is the purpose for Steve "Cantaloupe Calves" King's proposed legislation except to further erode private sector union membership in states where NO RTW LEGISLATION HAS PASSED with the hope that the GOP can prevent passage of any pro-labor laws at the state level.
edit on 2015-1-29 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:50 PM
This is LONG overdue. I have always wanted to become a least on a part-time basis...but kept putting it off because I would have to join or pay dues to a crappy union. Maybe I can finally do something I have always wanted to do without compromising my principles.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:53 PM
Why the hell should people be forced to pay the union for the privilege of having a job?

Answer they shouldn't.


Never again.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:58 PM

originally posted by: neo96
Why the hell should people be forced to pay the union for the privilege of having a job?

Answer they shouldn't.


Never again.

Exactly. Once again this comes down to me being free to make a choice without Government interference.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:14 AM
a reply to: Ark005

The only purpose that they ever served is now taken care by O.S.H.A. Well except the part of lining their own pockets.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:33 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

"Forced Union Dues" lol. Only in America... as they say.

Your Unions clearly aren't real Unions like they are supposed to be.
You can either fix them, or abolish them... but don't be surprised when your QoL drops like a chinese childworker.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:39 AM
a reply to: coldkidc

It only took you two minutes to come up with a generic anti-(insert group) response. I see it has not taken long for the usual anti-union crowd to come out and attack the unions using the usual ill-logical rhetoric.

A good friend of mine is in an Operating Engineers Union and has been for years and now a journeyman and currently employed as a crane operator building a launch pad for NASA. He gets paid well for a highly skilled job and he is a high school dropout. His union gets contracts because the non-union competition does not have the pool of experienced workers and safety record.

Unions for certain trades are still relevant and still offer a quality product at a fair price.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:47 AM
a reply to: jrod

This isn't about whether unions are good or bad. This is about my right to work without having to join one. Don't take it personally...I hate joining anything. My freedom, my choice.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:58 AM
First, I'm aware some "forced union dues" do apparently happen. I've never met anyone that's happened to, though. As such, I'm under the impression it's relatively uncommon? Anyway, let the worker decide, if they don't want in & lose out on negotiations & benefits, they lose out. Their choice.

Secondly, and equally important, close the loopholes allowing companies to fire people for being unionized. Everyone should be able to utilize the option of a union if they so please, without fearing losing their jobs for so much as considering it. RTW is a crock of crap when you can be canned without cause, or for unionizing.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:59 AM
a reply to: Metallicus

And as I posted, I do not think unions are needed for many jobs. However there are many jobs where the Union option makes sense for both the worker and customer, especially for skilled dangerous jobs.

There are corrupt unions that need to go, That does not mean ALL unions need to go.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:06 AM
Some info ....

A pre-entry closed shop (US: closed shop) is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to hire union members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times in order to remain employed. This is different from a post-entry closed shop (US:union shop), which is an agreement requiring all employees to join the union if they are not already members.[1] In a union shop, the union must accept as a member any person hired by the employer.

International Labour Organization covenants do not address the legality of closed shop provisions, leaving the question up to each individual nation. The legal status of closed shop agreements varies widely from country to country, ranging from bans on the agreement to extensive regulation of the agreement to not mentioning it at all.

Legal status
United States

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop, except in those states that have passed right-to-work laws, in which case even the union shop is illegal. ....................

Closed Shop

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:17 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

In some ways I could see how this could be a good thing. Make the Union Dues optional. If you choose to be a member of a Union, you may. You will also receive any of the benefits of that Union if you join. If you choose not to join, you won't have the Union to back you in any way.

If the act were implemented in this way, then it would give people free choice, and allow them to take a risk if they feel that the dues outweigh the benefits. If it is implemented in any other way, then I would not be in support of it at all.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:26 AM
One beef some people have with "Right to Work" is the problem of workforces that are unionized and also have non-members working the same jobs under a contract.

The non-members don't join and don't pay dues. Only the members do.

But the non-members get all the same contracted benefits.

Deterioration can happen over time as people drop out and/or leave the job and new workers don't join.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in