HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should there be a Nationa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:00 AM

Should there be a National Right to Work law?

I'm not talking about these oxymoron "right-to-work" laws that we see in anti-union states. These laws are anything but, giving employers the right to fire workers for just about any reason they desire.

I'm talking about a real "right-to-work" law. Employment should be a right, not a privilege extended by the wealthy elites, subject to their political and personal whims. Employers should not have the right to fire someone without legitimate cause. Reading stories about companies laying off workers simply because their candidate didn't win the election, because they're afraid they might not make an extra million dollars in profits, makes me absolutely sick. Employees should have the right to feel secure in their jobs. If you are performing your duties, you should not have to worry about whether or not your job is in jeopardy because some greedy CEOs or company managers want to give themselves bigger bonuses.

It's bad enough that bosses can use almost any personal reason or vendetta as an excuse to fire employees who have done nothing to merit termination. It's worse when corporations conduct mass layoffs so that they can pad their wallets. But using election results to fire employees - it smacks of economic terrorism, and should not be tolerated.

10 replies, 835 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should there be a National Right to Work law? (Original post)
Hugabear Nov 2012 OP
leftyohiolib Nov 2012 #1
Hugabear Nov 2012 #2
byeya Nov 2012 #3
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #8
TVet Nov 2012 #4
Scuba Nov 2012 #5
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #6
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #7
Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #9
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2012 #10

Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:03 AM

1. your talking about an limit on compensation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:09 AM

2. I'm talking about a Right to Work

If an employer is going to fire someone, there had damned well be good cause.

Wouldn't it be nice if corporations cared as much about their employees as much as they do about their bonus checks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:16 AM

3. Yes, there should be a form of tenure for workers after 1 - 3 years and a workable system

 

of discipline for workers for work rule infractrions.

If the workplace is organized, then the union has negotiated work place rights for the rank and file.

I think it boils down to encouraging unionization of most private sector workers and that starts with the card check(EFCA I believe) system of unionization - which Obama promised but did not make an effort on - and an overhaul of the NLRB.

14(b) of Taft-Hartley needs to be repealed. RepubliKKKan Right-To-Work(right to starve really) needs to be made illegal and secondary boycotts need to become legal once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:42 AM

8. I'm in favor of EFCA

and against full repeal of Taft-Hartley. I favor repealing the ban on secondary strikes, but I don't favor making right-to-work laws illegal. Each state has the ability to repeal those laws on their own, if they choose to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:23 AM

4. I dont want to hijack your thread and

I apologize but I do have two cents to add:

I think disabled people should also be allowed to work any job they might be able to do WITHOUT PENALTY. I.E. vets who are service connected and non service connected.

AND one injustice that I've been trying and trying to bring to light- the means-testing of veterans on V.A. pension. Not even that vets family or spouse is allowed to work or the V.A. reduces, dollar for dollar his pension. Thats dirty and low down. I've seen vets and their spouses have to get divorced to survive and I knew of one man--70 years old--committed suicide so the V.A. wouldn't take the car or house.


Happy fkg Veterans Day....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TVet (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:31 AM

5. +1,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TVet (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:36 AM

6. If you're talking about the Aid & Assistance Pension

Then yes, it is means tested, because it is specifically meant for low-income veterans. It has no relationship whatsoever to the VA disability pension, which has no means testing whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:39 AM

7. Employers should not be able to fire someone based on political opinion/affiliation

But employers should be able to lay employees off if they need to do so in order to keep the business afloat. I'm not in favor of mandating that employers/owners open their books to the government every time they face a downturn in business and have to let employees go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:47 AM

9. I don't think there is any fundamental "right" to work......

 

Employment where you exchange your time and talents for a salary and benefits is still something dependent on whether society has a need for your time/talent, whether that is a private or public sector "employer".

When I first started working for a multi-national company and had colleagues in other parts of the world, especially western Europe, I was a bit perplexed at their "notice" periods. That is probably because my experience in the American labor market was, absent a contract where RIFs were done according to a seniority system, any employer could lay you off or "fire" you for cause or without cause with no notification.

What I like about the notice period (usually 30 days but in some countries more) is (1) it gives the employee and his/her family notice that a layoff is coming (2) Employees have opportunities to seek other employment within the company (rarely much help but it is an option) and (3) Employees have time to begin to plan their job search (granted this isn't very good for the employer because the employee becomes less productive and may engage in unethical behavior around customer lists, IPR, etc.) and (4) Local, state and federal governments are aware the changes are coming.

It has always seemed one-sided to have an employer allowed to lay off or fire anyone at any time for cause or without cause with no notice. But most companies expect employees to give them at least 2 weeks notice or, in most companies, you forgo any unused vacation or other accrued benefits.

So a federal notice practice (not applicable to small businesses - suggest those under 50 employees) would make employers think and perhaps plan a little more, would make the transition a little more bearable for the employee and give government a forward look at upcoming reductions in force so as to plan for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:49 AM

10. Excellent suggestions all n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread