- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"Right to work laws" don't do anything to protect you right to work
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:03 am
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:03 am
"Right to work laws" don't do anything to protect you right to work.
You've always been free to not work at a union shop.
RTW laws restrict the kinds of agreements business and labor may enter into - that is it.
They are nanny government regulation at its finest - and anyone who supports them is a big government teat sucker who needs his nanny government to tell his boss what kinds of contracts he is allowed to sign.
You've always been free to not work at a union shop.
RTW laws restrict the kinds of agreements business and labor may enter into - that is it.
They are nanny government regulation at its finest - and anyone who supports them is a big government teat sucker who needs his nanny government to tell his boss what kinds of contracts he is allowed to sign.
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 12:05 am
15
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:04 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Smartest thing your fat arse has posted in a long time.
(No message)
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:04 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
(No message)
i don't agree with RTW
i don't agree with union shop laws
the decisions should be left up to employers and employees, without any government influence
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't agree with union shop laws
the decisions should be left up to employers and employees, without any government influence
So you favor allowing closed shops?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:06 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
So you favor allowing closed shops?
i favor leaving it up to employers and employees, without government involvement
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:06 am to SpidermanTUba
Then why do workers in union states have to pay a penalty not to be in a union?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:06 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Name one union that didn't get it's contract ratified due to RTW.
RTW laws restrict the kinds of agreements business and labor may enter into - that is it.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:07 am to Doosh606
quote:
Then why do workers in union states have to pay a penalty not to be in a union?
They don't. The above statement is completely false. You're full of shite.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:07 am to SpidermanTUba
If you want to work for an employer, you should not be forced to join the union.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:09 am to Jbird
quote:
Name one union that didn't get it's contract ratified due to RTW.
Probably zero. Its highly unlikely a union would try to negotiate an ILLEGAL contract, its kind of a waste of time.
Go drink some fricking Brawndo and go to bed. 
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:09 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If you want to work for an employer, you should not be forced to join the union.
if the owner wants to make the (terrible) decision to only hire union labor, that mistake should be left up to the owner
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:09 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The worker has always been free to choose NOT to work at a union shop.
This confuses me. So the worker can choose a different place to work because they aren't pleased with a company's union policy, but they can't choose a different place to work because they aren't happy with the birth-control restrictions of a private company's religious affiliation.
Which one is it?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:10 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If you want to work for an employer, you should not be forced to join the union.
You aren't. Haven't been since 1947.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:11 am to schexyoung
quote:
So the worker can choose a different place to work because they aren't pleased with a company's union policy, but they can't choose a different place to work because they aren't happy with the birth-control restrictions of a private company's religious affiliation.
The latter simply isn't true.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:11 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If you want to work for an employer, you should not be forced to join the union.
Why shouldn't that be up to the employer to decide what his conditions are? That would be true freedom.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if the owner wants to make the (terrible) decision to only hire union labor, that mistake should be left up to the owner
Sounds like you're picking winners.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:12 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The latter simply isn't true.
if it were true in absolute terms, the home depot case would never have needed to be filed
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:13 am to SpidermanTUba
SO you are conceding the point that RTW never caused a union contract, so why do you need a fricking constitutional amendment to protect unions?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:13 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Sounds like you're picking winners.
i'm picking freedom of individuals to make agreements amongst themselves as opposed to government believing it knows best
i am a big believer in freedom
Posted on 6/11/14 at 12:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if it were true in absolute terms, the home depot case would never have needed to be filed
Home Depot has been involved in more than one court case. You'll need to be more specific.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News