Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Wisconsin Court Deems Right to Work Illegal
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="251" data-source="post: 2149411" data-attributes="member: 49141"><p>The misnomer "Right to Work" is the real problem here. As [USER=57235]@wide load[/USER] mentioned, the right to work has already been established. It was the driving force behind the Taft Hartley act of 1947 and has been argued to be contained in the 14th Amendment by common law constitutionalists for decades before that. </p><p></p><p>What people need to understand, and where this gets confusing (by design) is the definitions of what "Right to work" means in Taft Hartley, what it means as it applies to the 14th Amendment and what today's "right to work" legislation means. The arguments are as different as the eras in which the laws that defined them were enacted. </p><p></p><p>The 14th Amendment argument is pretty easy to simplify . It breaks down to each individual having the right to "contract his or her own labor as he or she deems appropriate." This argument is used by modern day Common Law Constitutionalists to argue that any law which restricts this right (I.E. minimum wage laws etc) is unconstitutional.</p><p></p><p>Taft-Hartley, AKA the Labor Managment Rights Act of 1947 was an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It was put into law by an EXTREMELY conservative supreme court. This act was the true "right to work" law in that it made the "closed shop" concept illegal and allowed employers who previously could ONLY hire members from the Union hall that organized the labor to hire whomever they wanted. This act also made it illegal to force someone to join the Union and pay dues as a term of employment, as well as deemed the practice of using dues payer money to fund political candidates or activity without their consent illegal (this is why you should contribute to D.R.I.V.E). But even the EXTREMELY conservative supreme court recognized that giving people all of the benefits of Unionism for free was inherently unfair so they made it a law that non members must pay what is known as an "Agency fee" to the union. This agency fee covers ONLY the cost of representation by the Union, and is usually about 10 to 20% less than full dues. BUT...and this is where it gets messy. The supreme court left a loophole in the Taft-Hartley Act. Even though the EXTREMELY conservative Supreme Court at the time recognized that recieving all of the benefits of Union representation for nothing was inherently unfair to the Union, it allowed the States the right (states rights...sound familliar?) to abolish the "Agency Payer Fee" if they so desired. And that...my friends, is exactly what today's "Right to work" legislation does. It forces the Unions to represent non-members for free. Not only that, but it allows non members all of the rights and recourse that members have if they are not satisfied with their representation. So in a "Right to work" state, if a non dues, non agency fee paying member is not happy with their representation, they have the right to sue the union for not providing the representation that they never paid for. </p><p></p><p>There's a lot more that would have made this post three times as long. But that's the best nutshell explanation I could muster as I wait for my 10:00am appointment to show up.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="251, post: 2149411, member: 49141"] The misnomer "Right to Work" is the real problem here. As [USER=57235]@wide load[/USER] mentioned, the right to work has already been established. It was the driving force behind the Taft Hartley act of 1947 and has been argued to be contained in the 14th Amendment by common law constitutionalists for decades before that. What people need to understand, and where this gets confusing (by design) is the definitions of what "Right to work" means in Taft Hartley, what it means as it applies to the 14th Amendment and what today's "right to work" legislation means. The arguments are as different as the eras in which the laws that defined them were enacted. The 14th Amendment argument is pretty easy to simplify . It breaks down to each individual having the right to "contract his or her own labor as he or she deems appropriate." This argument is used by modern day Common Law Constitutionalists to argue that any law which restricts this right (I.E. minimum wage laws etc) is unconstitutional. Taft-Hartley, AKA the Labor Managment Rights Act of 1947 was an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It was put into law by an EXTREMELY conservative supreme court. This act was the true "right to work" law in that it made the "closed shop" concept illegal and allowed employers who previously could ONLY hire members from the Union hall that organized the labor to hire whomever they wanted. This act also made it illegal to force someone to join the Union and pay dues as a term of employment, as well as deemed the practice of using dues payer money to fund political candidates or activity without their consent illegal (this is why you should contribute to D.R.I.V.E). But even the EXTREMELY conservative supreme court recognized that giving people all of the benefits of Unionism for free was inherently unfair so they made it a law that non members must pay what is known as an "Agency fee" to the union. This agency fee covers ONLY the cost of representation by the Union, and is usually about 10 to 20% less than full dues. BUT...and this is where it gets messy. The supreme court left a loophole in the Taft-Hartley Act. Even though the EXTREMELY conservative Supreme Court at the time recognized that recieving all of the benefits of Union representation for nothing was inherently unfair to the Union, it allowed the States the right (states rights...sound familliar?) to abolish the "Agency Payer Fee" if they so desired. And that...my friends, is exactly what today's "Right to work" legislation does. It forces the Unions to represent non-members for free. Not only that, but it allows non members all of the rights and recourse that members have if they are not satisfied with their representation. So in a "Right to work" state, if a non dues, non agency fee paying member is not happy with their representation, they have the right to sue the union for not providing the representation that they never paid for. There's a lot more that would have made this post three times as long. But that's the best nutshell explanation I could muster as I wait for my 10:00am appointment to show up. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Wisconsin Court Deems Right to Work Illegal
Top