It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Missouri Voters Reject Anti-Union right-to-work law

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It was really bad with one of the companies I worked for that had an airport contract. We were told that with some airports that were unionized, we'd have to have people unplug our equipment, plug it back in, and do everything short of fixing our equipment.




posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: wylekat

I am living it, and love it. If we wanted to unionize we can, we CHOOSE not to. Bring your propaganda elsewhere.

Meh. ya can keep it. You like the potential to be fired for literally no reason, or be refused work for literally no reason, be denied benefits, etc- go right on ahead and enjoy. I said nothing about unions- JUST that law.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wylekat

I have great benefits and can call out of work 18 days a year and they can't even ask me a reason and I take a paid vacation every other month.

Bye.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


I actually love unions .. as they are meant to be, not the monstrosity they have become.

I completely agree with that. I used to think unions were what they say they are, until I realized that a union is just another big business in the business of extortion. That was when my attitude toward them changed, from being a fan to being a critic.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Unions should not be political entities. They should stick to negotiations between owners and workers for fair pay and we should eliminate the bureaucracy with an agenda.

I don't need a union to represent my political ideology. I need a union to demand fair compensation for the work I do.

Unions used to help the working class. Now they have become political powerhouses that do little to actually represent the employees.

Unions should be a group of lawyers and accountants not power hungry bureaucratic entities.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Good job union is always the way to go



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I was very disappointed in my fellow Mizzurkans. Prop A would not have disbanded any unions, but it could have forced those unions to offer better incentives to keep people on the union rolls.

But no, we have to force people to join a union they may have no interest in being part of, and let a Union boss take away a part of their salary for no benefit to be used for activities those people may not align with.

Good job.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob420

And how would this have prevented unions for those who want them?



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: CB328

It failed because it included public sector unions.


Maybe, but probably not.

If it had included public unions, the law would have been invalid because it would have been contrary to Janus v. AFSCME. That decision prohibits public unions from collecting fees from non-union employees. Government employee unions are scrambling as a result.


edit on 8/19/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Prop A would not have disbanded any unions, but it could have forced those unions to offer better incentives to keep people on the union rolls.
In other words, force them to raise the fees they charge union members and the "fringes" that employers pay?



But no, we have to force people to join a union
They are not being forced to join a union. But unions can continue to charge non-union members fees.


I'm not sure what sort of effect this will have though. Often (if not usually), a "union shop" is a union shop where all employees are union members anyway.

edit on 8/19/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


They are not being forced to join a union. But unions can continue to charge non-union members fees.

I don't see the practical difference. If I have to pay for a product whether I want it or not, how is that not forcing me to buy it?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Not much difference, though non-union employees pay lower union fees than union employees.

But that's not relevant because I said that they are not being forced to join a union and they aren't. They can be required to pay the fee and they are.


There is quite a difference. Practically speaking.
edit on 8/19/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
People wonder why wages have been depressed for decades. Union membership in the US is at its lowest in decades.

The anti-union elite has convinced the lower middle class that unions are no good and the resulting low wage state we have today is the result.

Sure unions aren’t perfect but they're responsible for practically all of the progress in the workplace from paid vacations, to child labor laws, to sick pay.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

They are also very good for the union leaders. Who are paid by fees collected from union (and other) workers.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I've been informed NC's 'right to work' law is *vastly* different from others states'. It figures. This place just stinks on ice.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Not much difference, though non-union employees pay lower union fees than union employees.

...

There is quite a difference. Practically speaking.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. The purpose selling a product or service is to obtain money in exchange. So from the point of view of the one purchasing, what's the difference between being forced to purchase and being forced to pay for the purchase?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   
There was a huge push back against the prop and ‘vote no’ signs were all over the town in which I live. Also, I think there was general confusion about what “right to work” means as well as what the effect of it would be if passed. People I talked to who weren’t affiliated with unions seemed confused about what they were voting on, and people affiliated with unions I talked to all said it would cause wages to decrease for all workers. The people most passionate about it were pro-union or union affiliated and lots of people were either uninformed or ambivalent about it, thus it was voted down. I am not sure that the failure to pass right to work shows a coming blue wave, at least in Missouri. I know people who were die-hard Hillary supporters who hate Trump as much as ever, and I know people who hated Hillary and voted for Trump who still feel the same. Basically—no one I know has flipped from red to blue, or vice versa. That said, the rural town I live in, has ten major new businesses, hotel, and restaurants in town in the past six months—Menards, Marshall’s, Pet Smart, Hobby Lobby, Hampton Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Arby’s, Shoe Sensation, another shoe store I can’t remember the name of, and another new restaurant yet to be revealed. We haven’t had a major new business in this town in twenty years and now suddenly we have nearly a dozen—so as one can imagine, unemployment is the lowest it has been in decades, new houses are being built, people are moving to the area instead of out. Our population has been 17,000 for my entire life, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it actually jumps the next census...so if these positive things can be attributed to President Trump—rightly or wrongly—it would not surprise me if his support in this area doesn’t increase at least a little. I guess we will find out in the midterm election!



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
When I see some unions fight to keep people on the rolls who are not allowed to actually do their job (teachers Union in NY) or when the Union fired all the new teachers at an experiment school where science and math were the focus and they brought in new teachers to keep the energy levels up... and the school exceeded every school in the state. Then the budget crunch came new teachers were fired and old teachers moved in and the schools test numbers went through the floor.

Or the VA guy gets popped for Bribery and witness intimidation in Puerto Rico, got fired and then the union sued and won to force the VA to bring him back, or the nice ladies that abused their position to get new jobs with less work at the same pay, and got the govt to handle the homes they were leaving behind giving them a nice check for the value of their old homes.

Also as mentioned I do not like what the DNC has become but unions have a tendency to spend big bucks supporting the DNC,so my money would be going to support something I dont believe in.

Unions are a good thing, they help in a lot of ways, but its a real shady statement to say the RNC is responsible for killing Unions, things like my examples above have done more harm to the unions than anything a republican has done.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




So from the point of view of the one purchasing, what's the difference between being forced to purchase and being forced to pay for the purchase?

This is not about "purchasing" anything. My post was in reply to the claim that people will be forced to join unions. This is not the case. In fact, nothing has changed. That's the point. Non-union workers can still be required to pay (reduced) union fees (as a result of collective bargaining agreements) even though they are not union members.


Becoming a member of a union is different from not becoming the member of a union. On a number of levels. For example, union members get health benefits from the union, non-members do not. Union members take part in a union pension plan, non-members do not. Union members can participate in union apprenticeship programs, non-members do not.


edit on 8/19/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


This is not about "purchasing" anything.

O contraire!

That is exactly what happens when one joins a union. That person is purchasing a membership, a service. What, did you think the dues were charitable contributions?


Non-union workers can still be required to pay (reduced) union fees (as a result of collective bargaining agreements) even though they are not union members.

The union agreement in its most basic legal sense is a contract among the members, and in the modern expanded sense between the union itself (which is not a person but a legal entity, similar in that respect to a corporation) and the members. The members agree to pay their dues and abide by certain decisions of the union, and the union agrees to provide negotiated working conditions (along with other potential perks).

Under that legal argument, any requirement for a non-union member to pay union dues is a forced contract, i.e. a contract executed under duress, and is unenforceable. One cannot be forced to agree to a contractual obligation.

The only way this could even be legal is if the job description specifies that certain dues will be deducted from the pay scale to support the union. Then, by accepting the job, the worker has agreed to the disbursement.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join