Trump's Right to Work legislation. Where does it leave us?
- Thread starter Skooney
- Start date
satellitedriver
Moderator
Right to work means a worker is not forced to join the union to work for his paycheck.
We'll see how some of the anti-union hourlies on this forum feel when they're personally affected by this.
"A national “right to work” law would be the Holy Grail of right wing anti-labor forces who have despised unions for decades. There is no law that would be more detrimental to union membership. You need only look at the state-by-state union membership numbers to see how bad it could get. It’s not going overboard to imagine national union numbers could fall by half in short order. Unions would still exist, but they would have to work immeasurably harder to maintain their financial stability and relationships with members. All legally enshrined stability would be gone. Such a law would make every workplace in America an uphill battle for organized labor. And since unionization is one of the only things that average workers today can do to improve their economic position, this would undoubtedly exacerbate economic inequality, increase the power of corporations over their employees, and make it harder for Americans to have any hope of a middle class lifestyle."
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/national-right-to-work-law-would-be-the-union-apocaly-1791844314
"A national “right to work” law would be the Holy Grail of right wing anti-labor forces who have despised unions for decades. There is no law that would be more detrimental to union membership. You need only look at the state-by-state union membership numbers to see how bad it could get. It’s not going overboard to imagine national union numbers could fall by half in short order. Unions would still exist, but they would have to work immeasurably harder to maintain their financial stability and relationships with members. All legally enshrined stability would be gone. Such a law would make every workplace in America an uphill battle for organized labor. And since unionization is one of the only things that average workers today can do to improve their economic position, this would undoubtedly exacerbate economic inequality, increase the power of corporations over their employees, and make it harder for Americans to have any hope of a middle class lifestyle."
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/national-right-to-work-law-would-be-the-union-apocaly-1791844314
Jackburton
Gone Fish'n
We are in a right to work state, in our center, I know for a fact there are only 3 non paying dues members. Educating employees on why they should pay isn't hard, management's consistent harassment and disregard for contract language landed members massive checks in December. We remind everyone the reason we have the rights we do and representation our local provides isn't free.
The members that refuse to join don't file, mostly from embarssment, partly from self righteousness they don't need the union. They constantly get
on and take it, not by employees, but by management knowing they won't file.
The members that refuse to join don't file, mostly from embarssment, partly from self righteousness they don't need the union. They constantly get
on and take it, not by employees, but by management knowing they won't file.
ibleedbrown
Well-Known Member
the thing i am worried about is come contract time what kind of pull is trump going to have if we decide to strike. could trump pull a reagan and step in like he did in the 1981 traffic controller strike? i know the circumstances are very different but i think trump would try and jump in and force us back to work.
Indecisi0n
Well-Known Member
Sorry but if I was representing someone who wasn't paying dues I wouldn't say anything in the office.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
You're 4 years away from retirement. Not sure how it would effect you at all.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I am fairly certain that the Company makes pension contributions for all hourlies regardless of whether they are in the Union or not.
Johney
Well-Known Member
Because it's a union negotiated benefit? Maybe?
FrigidFTSup
Resident Suit
Completely different situation. It is illegal for federal government employees to strike. It is not illegal for you guys to strike. The only union employees at UPS that can be blocked from striking are the pilots, as they fall under the railway labor act.
It's actually 44 months from retirement, I can't wait.
And I guess this more than anything is what I'm asking. I understand the premise behind it, but like someone else mentioned, 90% of our hub is completely immune to union issues. We have about 400 union employees, less than 80 voted 4 years ago. Our representation has become stagnant and overall somewhat lacking. The problem is, the loud mouths are the only ones speaking without any shred of common sense - just negativity.
My wife and I own a business, have for 17 years, I had back surgery 2 years ago and want to make it to 25 years of service, sell the business and retire at 59. Not sure I'll make it 44 more months, but that's what I'm hoping. I'm not well versed in the politics of it, but living in a state with a lot of unions, Right to Work is something people talk about. When I read this yesterday, naturally I questioned it, and found a million studies and opinions about the subject.
I think more of mine need to understand that the company doesn't give us the pay and benefits we have because it wants to. And if the union falls, new hires might as well go work for FedEx.
