The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana

[Teamster89]

The following video gives a short but detailed summary of the ill effects of so-called Right-to-Work legislation. Despite the spin of the anti-worker agenda, Right-to-Work (for Less) leads to economic, social and occupational declines. Please take the time to view this video from an Indiana worker. Stay informed and inform others! Take action to protect the future of Indiana and its families!

[video=youtube;CxolQb8lISw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxolQb8lISw[/video]

 

[satellitedriver]

I would rather have the right to work, than be forced to join any group to be able to work.
Sorry, your spokesman mixes metaphors and is very incorrect trying to correlate statistics and trying to apply it to the gains of the "labor movement."
Believe it or not, I am pro -union, but not at the expense of a persons right to earn a living.
There are multiple reasons for the union membership declining to less than 10% of the working population in America.
It is not the right to work States fault for these declines.

 

[hypocrisy]

I would rather have the right to work, than be forced to join any group to be able to work.
Sorry, your spokesman mixes metaphors and is very incorrect trying to correlate statistics and trying to apply it to the gains of the "labor movement."
Believe it or not, I am pro -union, but not at the expense of a persons right to earn a living.
There are multiple reasons for the union membership declining to less than 10% of the working population in America.
It is not the right to work States fault for these declines.

Even in the best years of Union membership (the peak about 35% in the 50's), most companies remain non-union. It's up to every workplace to decide if they want Union representation, and highly arrogant of anyone who walks in later to say they should be able to 'opt out'.

Union shops never prevented anyone from earning a living, just required them to play by the same rules everyone else does in that particular workplace. It's your choice to apply to work there and you are free to choose non-union workplaces.

RTW is absolutely a major reason declines have occurred and continue. Money that could be used to organize members and gain workplace strength is instead sapped by freeloading workers. As a steward for many, many years I can tell you that the non-union members are the first to whine about the contract they have no vote on and put no money into enforcing is being violated.

It's no coincidence that as Union membership has declined, so has the standard of pay and benefits for workers as a whole. Companies feel no pressure to offer pensions, paid healthcare, job security, favorable work rules, much less competitive wages without Union-shop competition. To believe otherwise is just drinking the kool-aid of promised prosperity that is really indentured servitude with nights and weekends off.

 

[brett636]

As an Indiana Teamster I fully support the Indiana legislature and Governor Daniels in their pursuit of a right to work status for my state. I fully support the right of workers to unionize, but I do not believe every worker in a union shop should be forced to pay dues if they do not want to. The union is a business and as a business should prove itself to its customers(ie the workers) without having to coerce that money from them by making them choose between the dues money and their employment. These, I believe, should be separate issues and advances the idea of personal liberty by putting that choice into the hands of the many(individual workers) rather than in the hands of a few(union bosses).

 

[satellitedriver]

Even in the best years of Union membership (the peak about 35% in the 50's), most companies remain non-union. It's up to every workplace to decide if they want Union representation,As it is already in every RTW state. and highly arrogant of anyone who walks in later to say they should be able to 'opt out'. Much more arrogant for a Union to force someone to "opt in".

Union shops never prevented anyone from earning a living,Only if you work in a right to work state just required -(read as forced)-them to play -(read as pay)-by the same rules everyone else does in that particular workplace. It's your choice to apply to work there and you are free to choose non-union workplaces. Thank You for making my point. In 1986, I applied to work at UPS and did not know it was a union "workplace". If I was not in a right to work state, I could not have even applied for the job, without being a union member.
Name one other example in America that demands you join and pay an organization, to be able to apply for a job.


RTW is absolutely a major reason declines have occurred and continue.Baloney, Texas is a right to work state and I have been an active member in 3 national unions. Money that could be used to organize members and gain workplace strength is instead sapped by freeloading workers.Freeloaders? You have not met the BA's, and the relatives they employ, in Texas. As a steward-( I too have represented the union position, at many a meeting)- for many, many years I can tell you that the non-union members are the first to whine about the contract they have no vote on and put no money into enforcing is being violated. I have heard a many union worker whine about the contract signed in 97'. They were lied to.

It's no coincidence that as Union membership has declined, so has the standard of pay and benefits for workers as a whole. Companies feel no pressure to offer pensions, paid healthcare, job security, favorable work rules, much less competitive wages without Union-shop competition. To believe otherwise is just drinking the kool-aid of promised prosperity that is really indentured servitude with nights and weekends off.

Your last two sentences are the quintessential mantra of the teamsters.
Fact;
In the right to work State of Texas, one can make double,to triple, what a union job pays.
Caveat;
One must learn a skill and apply it.
There is no free lunch, in a working persons life.
There is only the free choice on how one is going to live their life.

 

[AssistantSanta]

Here's the analogy in my own interpratation
Union provides an escalator moving at a steady pace. The height is purely predictable. It's simply calculated by speed x time.

In non RTW states like here, everyone must pay the fare. In RTW states noone is compelled to pay the fare.
Either way, membership is required in order to have a say in how the escalator is operated.

So the membership may cry "free loader" to those who ride the escalator without paying the fare. That's understandable, however it's not without a catch. As long as you stand around, you'll eventually get to the top. All you got to do is do the time.

Here's the catch though, you're anchored down to the step you stepped on regardless of your membership. So, there's absolutely no option to prove yourself to WALK up the steps on your own, yet you're continuously being strapped on one step of the escalator is better than stairs that you have to climb up on your own, but not tied down to anything.

So, obviously there's going to be a conflict of interest between those who got to the top through wait list vs those just starting out. Though it isn't the age that matters, you can be no less than 38 with 20 yrs of service, therefore high seniority guys will inevitably be older.

Those who already made it to the top level will hang onto this system dearly and I can't blame them for it. Whats keeping them where they are though, is artificial scaffolding. It's not the market demand that is keeping them where they are.

Unions in the beginning helped form OSHA, help structure reasonable work hours but personally, I think they're getting too strong armed. I give them credit for what they have done in the past. It's just that I think they're pushing it too far now.

~~the assistant to Santa

So, that's how I see it. If you have dissenting POV that you'd like to share, you should articulate and present it. Hurling personal insults at me isn't going to convey your thoughts. You'd basically be saying "I don't like your way, so you are a prick and you suck, because it just does and I can't explain it" in even lesser words, yet more rudely.

 

[bigblu 2 you]

Here's the analogy in my own interpratation
Union provides an escalator moving at a steady pace. The height is purely predictable. It's simply calculated by speed x time.

In non RTW states like here, everyone must pay the fare. In RTW states noone is compelled to pay the fare.
Either way, membership is required in order to have a say in how the escalator is operated.

So the membership may cry "free loader" to those who ride the escalator without paying the fare. That's understandable, however it's not without a catch. As long as you stand around, you'll eventually get to the top. All you got to do is do the time.

Here's the catch though, you're anchored down to the step you stepped on regardless of your membership. So, there's absolutely no option to prove yourself to WALK up the steps on your own, yet you're continuously being strapped on one step of the escalator is better than stairs that you have to climb up on your own, but not tied down to anything.

So, obviously there's going to be a conflict of interest between those who got to the top through wait list vs those just starting out. Though it isn't the age that matters, you can be no less than 38 with 20 yrs of service, therefore high seniority guys will inevitably be older.

Those who already made it to the top level will hang onto this system dearly and I can't blame them for it. Whats keeping them where they are though, is artificial scaffolding. It's not the market demand that is keeping them where they are.

Unions in the beginning helped form OSHA, help structure reasonable work hours but personally, I think they're getting too strong armed. I give them credit for what they have done in the past. It's just that I think they're pushing it too far now.

~~the assistant to Santa

So, that's how I see it. If you have dissenting POV that you'd like to share, you should articulate and present it. Hurling personal insults at me isn't going to convey your thoughts. You'd basically be saying "I don't like your way, so you are a prick and you suck, because it just does and I can't explain it" in even lesser words, yet more rudely.

i wont hurl any insults at you but answer me honestly,.1st ,do you work at ups?2nd,,if you do and only if you do{because you would never believe what happens here from the outside}do you honestly,sincerely,whole-heartedly,etc,belive you could stay employed at ups more than one year without a union??? c'mon man,i mean really dude,C'MON?

 

[Inthegame]

Here's the analogy in my own interpratation
Union provides an escalator moving at a steady pace. The height is purely predictable. It's simply calculated by speed x time.

In non RTW states like here, everyone must pay the fare. In RTW states noone is compelled to pay the fare.
Either way, membership is required in order to have a say in how the escalator is operated.

So the membership may cry "free loader" to those who ride the escalator without paying the fare. That's understandable, however it's not without a catch. As long as you stand around, you'll eventually get to the top. All you got to do is do the time.

Here's the catch though, you're anchored down to the step you stepped on regardless of your membership. So, there's absolutely no option to prove yourself to WALK up the steps on your own, yet you're continuously being strapped on one step of the escalator is better than stairs that you have to climb up on your own, but not tied down to anything.

So, obviously there's going to be a conflict of interest between those who got to the top through wait list vs those just starting out. Though it isn't the age that matters, you can be no less than 38 with 20 yrs of service, therefore high seniority guys will inevitably be older.

Those who already made it to the top level will hang onto this system dearly and I can't blame them for it. Whats keeping them where they are though, is artificial scaffolding. It's not the market demand that is keeping them where they are.

Unions in the beginning helped form OSHA, help structure reasonable work hours but personally, I think they're getting too strong armed. I give them credit for what they have done in the past. It's just that I think they're pushing it too far now.

~~the assistant to Santa

So, that's how I see it. If you have dissenting POV that you'd like to share, you should articulate and present it. Hurling personal insults at me isn't going to convey your thoughts. You'd basically be saying "I don't like your way, so you are a prick and you suck, because it just does and I can't explain it" in even lesser words, yet more rudely.

I fell off the escalator trying to follow your logic. Try this, how long would an insurance company stay in business if they had to (by law) provide coverage for participants without charging those participants premiums? Or how about not paying taxes if the party in power isn't your choice? The fact is clear...if you benefit from a collective bargaining agreement (and everyone union or non-union benefits from the existence of unions) you should have the decency to understand your obligation to participate by being a member. End of story. Happy New Year.

 

[hembone]

AssistantSanta, there are a lot of non-union jobs out there. Why not pick one instead of wanting a job at UPS and doing nothing but complain because there are union.

 

[tomuchdrama]

As a 14 year feeder driver,i opt out every year from the union.This is MY CHOICE.I still have fees taken out weekly.Please don't start with the [if i'm so anti union i should just leave stuff] that has nothing to do with it.I'm a member service fee payer only,the law provides this to me as well as the security clause in the contract.I do NOT GET ANY MORE OR LESS BECAUSE OF THIS.Like satellitedriver put it[i would rather have the right to work,than be forced to join any group to be able to work.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

As a 14 year feeder driver,i opt out every year from the union.This is MY CHOICE.I still have fees taken out weekly.Please don't start with the [if i'm so anti union i should just leave stuff] that has nothing to do with it.I'm a member service fee payer only,the law provides this to me as well as the security clause in the contract.I do NOT GET ANY MORE OR LESS BECAUSE OF THIS.Like satellitedriver put it[i would rather have the right to work,than be forced to join any group to be able to work.

I respect your decision. This may be none of my business but what % of the monthly dues are you asked to pay as a member service fee payer?

 

[hondo]

I respect your decision. This may be none of my business but what % of the monthly dues are you asked to pay as a member service fee payer?

Union Membership Notice | Teamsters Local 705

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Union Membership Notice | Teamsters Local 705

Thank you.

Kudos on the website---very professional.

 

[DS]

Thank you.

Kudos on the website---very professional.

I disagree, I can't see how they could come up with a service fee in lieu of of union dues.
to become a non-member, service-fee payer instead. Individuals, who are non-member, service-fee payers pay an equivalent fee, which is a percentage of expenses spent by the Union related to collective bargaining, excluding the small percentage spent on non-representational activities
My trust in the company outweighs my trust for the union.I'd just end up paying way more than
my dues by buying some fat rep tickets to a yankees or a leafs game,which would fall under administrative fees.
I am a member but I would not get out if offered because I'm old and frankly, I'd be afraid to.
With new management fanatics coming and going all the time,all it takes is one to have it in for me.
At least there's a chance to get rehired if they fire me.

 

[brown_trousers]

It sounds to me like this RTW concept balances out at UPS just fine.

-We have a huge number of peak season workers that pay intitiation and union dues never to see any union negotiated wage increases or benefits. Its basically free money for our union.

-And then we have the few that choose to not join under RTW laws, but still enjoy our wages and benefits.

It kinda sounds like the two balance themselves out just fine.

 

[AssistantSanta]

I fell off the escalator trying to follow your logic. Try this, how long would an insurance company stay in business if they had to (by law) provide coverage for participants without charging those participants premiums?

When participants have the right to say Ef this and drop out, not very long.
When they don't, more or less indefinitely.

In first scenario, policyholder can seek coverage through shopping around, then only subject to policies or limitations of the policy selected. Usually the way private insurance works like car insurance.

In latter scenario, the insurance provider stays around indefinitely. Though only non-beneficiaries are usually expected to pay. This is called the government system. This ensures the lower few percentiles get free ride through life while the remaining population pays. Ask how children of illegals have full benefits. How criminals that crash into a wall in a police chase can afford life flight and a hospital stay.
Someone else(tax payers, health care providers and ultimately their customers who gets passed on higher cost) gets screwed to pick up after these people. That's how.

Or how about not paying taxes if the party in power isn't your choice?

I don't have to pay anything to any political party. Decisions made by those in power can affect how the tax is collected and how that is used/abused, but I don't have to pay for political expense. I can however, choose to, at my own will donate for any political cause I see fit.

The fact is clear...if you benefit from a collective bargaining agreement (and everyone union or non-union benefits from the existence of unions) you should have the decency to understand your obligation to participate by being a member.

Don't assume union is nothing but good. They do good but they do evil as well. Just like laws. Laws that provide more assistance to families with 5 or more kids and low income benefits them. It harms those who have 2 kids and belong in the upper middle class. If I become poor and have 3 more kids, I can benefit, but right now I don't therefore I am not benefiting from a such law. The only argument in favor is "once you have more kids and poor, you will benefit, therefor you benefit". Those who fit in the beneficiary category will fight tooth and nail, just as current union beneficiaries do.

It is a cause of stagnation and hindrance to advancement and opportunity. Seniority system means it disproportionately benefits lifers more while those who have no plan on staying a long time are oppressed.

College students who don't mind being helpers every school break are oppressed for example.

Existing higher seniority employees who will be used at higher expense will benefit. Union erected a wall that bars the company from soliciting for willing low-wage employees. Low wage employees are not only losing the ability to get jobs, but higher wages for high seniority drivers mean less money available to zero seniority people.

 

[Inthegame]

When participants have the right to say Ef this and drop out, not very long.
When they don't, more or less indefinitely.

In first scenario, policyholder can seek coverage through shopping around, then only subject to policies or limitations of the policy selected. Usually the way private insurance works like car insurance.

In latter scenario, the insurance provider stays around indefinitely. Though only non-beneficiaries are usually expected to pay. This is called the government system. This ensures the lower few percentiles get free ride through life while the remaining population pays. Ask how children of illegals have full benefits. How criminals that crash into a wall in a police chase can afford life flight and a hospital stay.
Someone else(tax payers, health care providers and ultimately their customers who gets passed on higher cost) gets screwed to pick up after these people. That's how.



I don't have to pay anything to any political party. Decisions made by those in power can affect how the tax is collected and how that is used/abused, but I don't have to pay for political expense. I can however, choose to, at my own will donate for any political cause I see fit.


Don't assume union is nothing but good. They do good but they do evil as well. Just like laws. Laws that provide more assistance to families with 5 or more kids and low income benefits them. It harms those who have 2 kids and belong in the upper middle class. If I become poor and have 3 more kids, I can benefit, but right now I don't therefore I am not benefiting from a such law. The only argument in favor is "once you have more kids and poor, you will benefit, therefor you benefit". Those who fit in the beneficiary category will fight tooth and nail, just as current union beneficiaries do.

It is a cause of stagnation and hindrance to advancement and opportunity. Seniority system means it disproportionately benefits lifers more while those who have no plan on staying a long time are oppressed.

College students who don't mind being helpers every school break are oppressed for example.

Existing higher seniority employees who will be used at higher expense will benefit. Union erected a wall that bars the company from soliciting for willing low-wage employees. Low wage employees are not only losing the ability to get jobs, but higher wages for high seniority drivers mean less money available to zero seniority people.

Thanks for responding to everything but what I posted. Maybe you're the one that fell off the escalator... anyway your mind is made up so it's pointless to continue this discussion. Good night Hoax, oh wait I mean Santa.

 

[UPSSOCKS]

Couldn't of picked a better person to make this video. This slug looks just like the guys that the Teamsters protect, which destroys anything extra the company could do for the employees. This guy cost you your turkeys, and this guy cost you the recognition that used to make some days fun at work. McDonald's and Wal-Mart both have created more jobs, employ more people and both are ANTI-UNION. If you live in a right to work state consider yourself lucky. It's hard enough in the world and you people have to watch out for your representation stabbing you in the back and robbing you.

 

[UPSSOCKS]

As a 14 year feeder driver,i opt out every year from the union.This is MY CHOICE.I still have fees taken out weekly.Please don't start with the [if i'm so anti union i should just leave stuff] that has nothing to do with it.I'm a member service fee payer only,the law provides this to me as well as the security clause in the contract.I do NOT GET ANY MORE OR LESS BECAUSE OF THIS.Like satellitedriver put it[i would rather have the right to work,than be forced to join any group to be able to work.

But why, the union members get so much more than you do? Some of them even get to donate their time off the clock to help with union stuff. You could feel important and maybe even get a shirt with someone else name on it. If you make friends with the right members you could possibly get extra $$ on the side from your union brothers misplaced dues...

 

[iowa boy]

It's hard enough in the world and you people have to watch out for your representation stabbing you in the back and robbing you.

It's a hard enough job here at UPS and we have to watch out for certain management types, (like you), stabbing us in the back and trying to screw us over too.