Can We Get Some REAL “Right-To-Work” Laws Here in Indiana?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I noticed with great interest that the Indiana General Assembly seems to be intent on re-introducing and passing a so-called “right-to-work” law during the upcoming legislative session next year. As I understand it, a “right-to-work” law (whose name is a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one) essentially prevents unions from requiring people to join a union and/or pay dues as a condition of employment. This kind of law seems to be primarily favored and promoted by conservatives and geared to limit the influence of unions in the workplace. At first blush, this kind of law might sound somewhat reasonable. I mean, why should anybody be required to join a union or (gulp) pay union dues as a condition of employment? However, the better question, at least as far as I’m concerned is: Why would you want to work somewhere where unions are nonexistent if not discouraged or prohibited? Who wants to work somewhere where there is no organized entity there to advocate for positive changes in the workplace and negotiate for more pay and better benefits for everybody? You say you don’t want to pay the dues? Well, the union is still going to be there for you when you come to them needing their help with a workplace problem and they’ll probably be helping you at their own expense? Doesn’t that sound a little like freeloading and don’t most conservatives hate freeloaders?

Rest of the article: http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-indianapolis/can-we-get-some-real-right-to-work-laws-here-indiana

[gardentoad]

1. That's the point.

If people get defended by the union without paying dues then a lot of people will opt out of paying dues and soon the union will be too underfunded to be effective and will fade out. Then they can cut pay and benefits to the bone.
If you think union employees wont fall into the non paying group, then just look at all the people that made good union wages, yet they shopped at Wal-Mart and bought the cheaper imports that caused the collapse of union jobs over the last 30 years in this country.
Too many Americans are only looking out for themselves.

[pioniq]

2. re: "RIGHT TO WORK" Laws in Indiana

I think the answer is a bit more simple. Folks should have a right to unionize or not. If they choose not to join a union, then the union shouldn't cover them. If they choose to join the union, then they get the benefits.

[christx30]

4. There is one part about non-right to work states

that I don't like. That if you decide that you don't want to join the union, then the union has the right to demand that you be fired. Maybe you don't like the Union leadership and you feel that they are too entrenched to be voted out. In that situation I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the union. But I would have to either join this union that I don't feel represents me, or try to find another job. But in a right to work state, I could continue to work there and not have to worry about it.
That's why I prefer a right to work state. It should be up to the indivual worker to decide for him/her self to join. It should not be mandatory.

[gardentoad]

5. That's not how it works.

The union in a right to work state must represent an employee regardless of if he is a member or not. Yes I agree if you can work at the same place and simply be on your own then it would be fair. The Unions have to spend their resources defending non paying employees.
That's how they break them.
They are counting on people not knowing that it is a ploy to destroy existing unions to get it passes. Compare the average blue collar wages in a right to work state with wages in a non right to work state. That says it all.

[and-justice-for-all]

3. have to get rid of the repuke assholes first...nt