By Sahid Fawaz

"Right to work" may soon become fiction if a new bill makes it way to law.

Insidesources.com reports:

"Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced legislation Wednesday designed to ban states from making union dues optional.

Warren has become a leading progressive figure over the past few years. She has also been an outspoken critic of right-to-work laws. Right-to-work outlaws mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Warren, a likely Democratic presidential candidate, introduced the bill alongside Rep. Brad Sherman to end right-to-work laws outright.

Federal law currently allows states to decide whether they want to be right-to-work or not. There are 28 states that have enacted the policy. Those opposed argue it is merely an underhanded way to hurt labor unions, while supporters contest it is actually about giving workers a choice.

'Their stated goal is to take jobs from other states by weakening unions and, therefore, lowering wages,' Sherman said in a statement. 'Current ‘right-to-work’ laws require unions to represent non-dues-paying employees, thereby creating free riders – people who benefit from the union contract but don’t pay.'

Sherman adds that the free-rider problem makes it harder for unions to organize in a right-to-work state. Labor unions and their supporters have often used the free-rider argument to oppose right-to-work. They are obligated to represent all workers regardless of whether they pay dues once they get voted in as the exclusive representative."

For the full story, check out the entire piece at Insidesources.com.

Comments   

+1 #14 Patrekr 2017-09-30 15:38
I work in an "at will" "right to work" state and it is definitely not in the interests of the working man or woman. My friends who are union complain about the unions taking their money and supporting leftist candidates and their agendas against their will. This I don't agree with either.

But the sad fact remains that if you are ONE person ALONE against the machine and it's laws and lawyers, you have NO CHANCE if they want to get rid of you, because they feel like it. You also have ZERO chance of a pay raise, and can count on them WFR'ing your coworkers and then piling their work onto your shoulders....for the same pay. Complain and you're done. Then they hire some desperate kid to do the job for half of what you make.

This is my world. I want a union but don't dare try to organize because I need my job. Those who think that it's better without are fools. :sad:
Quote
+7 #13 Kevin 2017-09-22 20:10
Not true. "Fair share fees" are not legal in states that have RTW laws. In other words, unions are FORCED to provide representation to non-members for free. I don't believe too many people out there would believe it to be ok if a business would be required to provide services for free. RTW is nothing but a lie meant to destroy unions.
Quote
+14 #12 Matthew Polansky 2017-09-22 04:04
Right to work laws were enacted to destabilize and ultimately destroy organized labor. Which it has been pretty successful at.the middle class has suffered greatly. Wages and quality of living standards are higher in a pro union society. Divide and conquer as the saying goes. Be pro labor and see your lifestyle improve.
Quote
0 #11 Steve Conrad 2017-09-22 03:36
Closed shops were outlawed in 1947. That means you don't have to belong to a union if you choose not to. It also gave states the right to pass RTW if they chose. Beck rules require that unions get permission to use any MEMBERS' money for political purposes. In non-RTW states - if a union was chosen by its workers- employees are still required to pay the fair share of the costs of that union. NONE of that money can be used for political purposes. RTW give employees the right to sponge off their co-workers for the benefits they receive.
Quote
-3 #10 Greg Psinas 2017-09-21 19:48
Unionized or "closed shop".
Quote
+9 #9 Chuck 2017-09-21 16:26
Great job Senator Warren! Can't believe some labor is skeptical. You have always been solid!
Quote
+2 #8 Dan McCrory 2017-09-21 16:25
My Congressman Brad Sherman has been introducing his anti-right-to-work bill for years now. Where was Warren then?
Quote
-23 #7 Jim 2017-09-21 14:56
This is hogwash, I work at a Union shop and pay union. Dues. I would be for this law if that lefty commy outlaws unions from being political and bans donatons with union members dues. I bet she would back off if that was the case. I don't like my union using my money for causes I don't like
Quote
+4 #6 Dejah 2017-09-21 14:06
Now if only the bill did away with "at will" employment or "Right to be Fired," which is *also* included in most "Right to Work" laws and intensely favors employers. This is why Unions are largely defanged and don't go to bat for employees in labor disputes. Right to Work laws does ZILCH for anyone. Right to Be Fired... call it what it is.
Quote
+4 #5 Lisa tappenden 2017-09-21 12:06
If job site you wish to work at is union, you dont have to pay full dues, if you dont agree.
You can be " financial core", only.
That means 4 to 8 dollars a mounth to cover the cost of union negotiations.
Beter pay in union.
Quote

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Latest Comments

 

Subscribe

union impact

Socal Plumbers
Kaiser
205banner2
205banner3
Hilton Glendale
x