Right to Work Bill

[1911 DeadHead]

If RTW has great affect on job placement for the ppl that do pay dues and it is easier to go to work somewhere else, you are right, I would leave the union in a heartbeat. Just so I can bring home some bacon, that is why we would leave. Even if it meant sacrificing some great benefits. All I wanna do is go to work. Union is working for me right now. When it doesn't, I will be out, and possibly owe the apprenticeship a decent amount of money. Well worth it for the great schooling/training I have had. So there I have answered the question. We would leave because it simply isnt working for us anymore and easier to find work without them even if it is for lesser pay and benefits. Does that satisfy the question? I've hated making a bad name for myself on here, I dont know all the ins and outs of the union. I know I pay my dues and I get paid great and have awesome benefits. We ALL just wanna go to work.

 

[Stschil]

If RTW has great affect on job placement for the ppl that do pay dues and it is easier to go to work somewhere else, you are right, I would leave the union in a heartbeat. Just so I can bring home some bacon, that is why we would leave. Even if it meant sacrificing some great benefits. All I wanna do is go to work. Union is working for me right now. When it doesn't, I will be out, and possibly owe the apprenticeship a decent amount of money. Well worth it for the great schooling/training I have had. So there I have answered the question. We would leave because it simply isnt working for us anymore and easier to find work without them even if it is for lesser pay and benefits. Does that satisfy the question? I've hated making a bad name for myself on here, I dont know all the ins and outs of the union. I know I pay my dues and I get paid great and have awesome benefits. We ALL just wanna go to work.

There a scores of people that just want to work. However, I think you will find that many of those who support RTW prefer to stand on their own merits, knowledge, and experience to secure employment rather than rely on force, be it from government regulation, union contract, or otherwise. The answer you gave actually supports RTW more than you think.

You say that being Union works for you. Great! You, in a sense are your Local's Customer. If they are providing excellent service for what you pay them, I understand why you wish to continue your membership. That is the basis for every business relationship. However, it's not that simple with Unions and Employers, and Employees. Through the force of law, union membership is required, therefore the union has no motivator to provide in a way a business has. No reason to enhance the level of service to keep their "Customers" (members). If the US Government suddenly said "you can now only purchase groceries at Kroger". Do you think that it would take very long for their attitude toward customers changed for the worse? Just look at how government service offices are run now and I think you"ll understand what I mean.
This is why unions are losing support, they have forgotten what it takes to compete, or rather they never had it to begin with. For unions to survive, they must evolve, something they have not done.

 

[goinggreyfast]

If RTW has great affect on job placement for the ppl that do pay dues and it is easier to go to work somewhere else, you are right, I would leave the union in a heartbeat. Just so I can bring home some bacon, that is why we would leave. Even if it meant sacrificing some great benefits. All I wanna do is go to work. Union is working for me right now. When it doesn't, I will be out, and possibly owe the apprenticeship a decent amount of money. Well worth it for the great schooling/training I have had. So there I have answered the question. We would leave because it simply isnt working for us anymore and easier to find work without them even if it is for lesser pay and benefits. Does that satisfy the question? I've hated making a bad name for myself on here, I dont know all the ins and outs of the union. I know I pay my dues and I get paid great and have awesome benefits. We ALL just wanna go to work.

I am glad that this is working for you--really! On a personal level, the union has seemingly done a good job of providing value to your career. I also respect when you say "When it doesn't, I will be out..." meaning that once they stop working for you, you aren't too proud to say, "Sayōnara: it was good while it lasted."

You also seem to be lacking the narrow mindset of so many of labor union persuasion that seem to set the standard of a bad attitude against those who are not of union affiliation, so good for you. I appreciate your attitude and I wish you the very best in your endeavors.

For those of us who have been unemployed for more than a year, we are waiting in the wings for something--anything--to break loose and if RTW will change the prospect of myself and others like me finding a job--kudos to RTW!!! If not, what have we got to lose? (I don't buy in to the lower wage rhetoric of RTW BTW.)

Have a blessed day.

 

[IndyBeerman]

From seeing my friends comments on Facebook, they were told by union reps that they'd lose around $5,300/yr, workers comp, and then their jobs. Most haven't even thought about finding out what RTW actually is or does.

I'm surprised that people have not focused on this post.

First all the union reps was lying through their teeth with the fingers crossed.

How are they going to lose 5,300 a year when they are under contract? Even then if they try to lower your wages, it will be stupidity because there will be employees leave, nobody wants to retrain a workforce.

Workman's Comp is a STATE mandated insurance that all employers employing over a set number MUST contribute to, a union has nilly squilly to do with this.

You're going to lose your job. This directly falls on your back, do your job, be a productive employee and you will have no fear about losing your job, because having to retrain costs more than retaining employee's.


It's really amazing on the amount of people out there who ignore common sense and knowledge that they have acquired over the years and become a puppet on a stick when they can't distinguish between the truth and jibberish that talking heads spew to them.

 

[jblomenberg16]

We were downtown today for the superbowl events. A small organized march from the occupy purdue group went through mid afternoon protesting rtw. Most of the crowd was booing them. I don't think they got much sympathy towards their cause.

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadie
So? Why would their members want to leave if given the choice?

Has anybody here answered that question yet? I mean no disrespect to union supporters, but why is that question continually glossed-over? RTW is a moot point if you figure out why somebody would choose not to join and then correct that issue. If I open a social club and nobody comes, the logical question would be "why doesn't anybody want to join?" The union response to that question seems to be "well let's force them to come." Apparently, some here think that's a sensible response to the problem. Makes no sense...

Say I own a company that employs electricians. I'm in need of a new electrician for my company. An electrician needs a job and says "Hey I'll do electrician work if you pay me." I say, "Great! I need your skills, and you need my money, it's a deal." Then, somebody comes up and says "hey you can't hire him unless he joins this union and pays us money." Now, this other person has nothing to do with either of us but he's going to tell me how to run my business and the new electrician who he can and can't work for. And that's okay with some folks?

You make a good point.
If the union is giving a worker a better deal then they wouldn't have to be coerced to stay in it.

MY version of Right to Work would be this:

1. Every individual who freely wants to be in the union and collectively bargain as a GROUP with their employer is free to.

2. Every individual who doesn't want to be in the union can bargain as an INDIVIDUAL directly with their employer and NOT be included in any collective bargaining agreement.

If unions actually does give employees as a group a better deal, then unions would have no objection to this.

I wonder why they do..?

 

[flagtag]

I think it's a control issue. A way to "own" a company and the employees who work there. If the unions can "own" enough companies, they can control the whole country. (And help the "Administration")
But, they are losing more & more members on a regular basis and are trying to force (by various methods) employees to join the unions. (card check). More money to spend on their candidates, and control legislation, etc. (A form of slave labor?) A takeover of the country.

 

[churchmouse]

We were downtown today for the superbowl events. A small organized march from the occupy purdue group went through mid afternoon protesting rtw. Most of the crowd was booing them. I don't think they got much sympathy towards their cause.

Good, not the time or place for that crap. Get a freaking job and occupy that for a while. Pay taxes, raise a family so on and so forth.

 

[Bill of Rights]

For those like me who's google-fu is somewhat challenged by a MASSIVE amount of google sites and to keep me from searching through 56 pages of posts--can someone provide me with a link to the RTW bill?

Thanks!

HB 1001, Employees' Right to Work bill

I'm going to take this from a different angle.

Most of us who live in Indiana and are on this board hold a LTCH. We do so because the law requires that we MUST do so. If we want to live in IN and be responsible for ourselves and our and our families' safety, we are required to pay "dues" to be allowed to do so. Most of us object to this requirement.

Compare and contrast this to AK, AZ, and WY. All three of those states have an available permit. People choose to get their permits that live there.... or not. If they want to travel to other states and carry, they may do so.

I hold a UT CFP and have just sent my information to AZ for theirs also. That was my choice, in both cases. I don't do a lot of traveling, so the likelihood of me needing to be able to carry in 10 states that my IN LTCH doesn't cover is going to arise seldom if ever, but it's worth it to me to have fewer states to have to worry about (or voluntarily disarm to visit)

The comparison should be obvious. I have a right to CHOOSE to join the AZ CWP club. I similarly could choose to apply in CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, OR, RI, and SC, though OR and SC both require I own property in those states to apply there. The others are restrictive in various ways. I choose not to apply in them until such time as I may need them, and in the meantime, I won't go to those states.

That's all RTW is. It gives the worker the choice to join the union, rather than being forced to do so. The parallel is that everyone here who lives in IN would be forced to apply for ten permits allowing them to carry in every state except CA, HI, IL, and NY.

Let's see a show of hands: Who's up for that?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

HB 1001, Employees' Right to Work bill

I'm going to take this from a different angle.

Most of us who live in Indiana and are on this board hold a LTCH. We do so because the law requires that we MUST do so. If we want to live in IN and be responsible for ourselves and our and our families' safety, we are required to pay "dues" to be allowed to do so. Most of us object to this requirement.

Compare and contrast this to AK, AZ, and WY. All three of those states have an available permit. People choose to get their permits that live there.... or not. If they want to travel to other states and carry, they may do so.

I hold a UT CFP and have just sent my information to AZ for theirs also. That was my choice, in both cases. I don't do a lot of traveling, so the likelihood of me needing to be able to carry in 10 states that my IN LTCH doesn't cover is going to arise seldom if ever, but it's worth it to me to have fewer states to have to worry about (or voluntarily disarm to visit)

The comparison should be obvious. I have a right to CHOOSE to join the AZ CWP club. I similarly could choose to apply in CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, OR, RI, and SC, though OR and SC both require I own property in those states to apply there. The others are restrictive in various ways. I choose not to apply in them until such time as I may need them, and in the meantime, I won't go to those states.

That's all RTW is. It gives the worker the choice to join the union, rather than being forced to do so. The parallel is that everyone here who lives in IN would be forced to apply for ten permits allowing them to carry in every state except CA, HI, IL, and NY.

Let's see a show of hands: Who's up for that?

Blessings,
Bill

Great analogy, spot on!

 

[IndyBeerman]

HB 1001, Employees' Right to Work bill

I'm going to take this from a different angle.

Most of us who live in Indiana and are on this board hold a LTCH. We do so because the law requires that we MUST do so. If we want to live in IN and be responsible for ourselves and our and our families' safety, we are required to pay "dues" to be allowed to do so. Most of us object to this requirement.

Compare and contrast this to AK, AZ, and WY. All three of those states have an available permit. People choose to get their permits that live there.... or not. If they want to travel to other states and carry, they may do so.

I hold a UT CFP and have just sent my information to AZ for theirs also. That was my choice, in both cases. I don't do a lot of traveling, so the likelihood of me needing to be able to carry in 10 states that my IN LTCH doesn't cover is going to arise seldom if ever, but it's worth it to me to have fewer states to have to worry about (or voluntarily disarm to visit)

The comparison should be obvious. I have a right to CHOOSE to join the AZ CWP club. I similarly could choose to apply in CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, OR, RI, and SC, though OR and SC both require I own property in those states to apply there. The others are restrictive in various ways. I choose not to apply in them until such time as I may need them, and in the meantime, I won't go to those states.

That's all RTW is. It gives the worker the choice to join the union, rather than being forced to do so. The parallel is that everyone here who lives in IN would be forced to apply for ten permits allowing them to carry in every state except CA, HI, IL, and NY.

Let's see a show of hands: Who's up for that?

Blessings,
Bill

I want to see someone against RTW to argue it based on this approach.

 

[goinggreyfast]

HB 1001, Employees' Right to Work bill

Thank you!

 

[Doug]

HB 1001, Employees' Right to Work bill

I'm going to take this from a different angle.

Most of us who live in Indiana and are on this board hold a LTCH. We do so because the law requires that we MUST do so. If we want to live in IN and be responsible for ourselves and our and our families' safety, we are required to pay "dues" to be allowed to do so. Most of us object to this requirement.

Compare and contrast this to AK, AZ, and WY. All three of those states have an available permit. People choose to get their permits that live there.... or not. If they want to travel to other states and carry, they may do so.

I hold a UT CFP and have just sent my information to AZ for theirs also. That was my choice, in both cases. I don't do a lot of traveling, so the likelihood of me needing to be able to carry in 10 states that my IN LTCH doesn't cover is going to arise seldom if ever, but it's worth it to me to have fewer states to have to worry about (or voluntarily disarm to visit)

The comparison should be obvious. I have a right to CHOOSE to join the AZ CWP club. I similarly could choose to apply in CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, OR, RI, and SC, though OR and SC both require I own property in those states to apply there. The others are restrictive in various ways. I choose not to apply in them until such time as I may need them, and in the meantime, I won't go to those states.

That's all RTW is. It gives the worker the choice to join the union, rather than being forced to do so. The parallel is that everyone here who lives in IN would be forced to apply for ten permits allowing them to carry in every state except CA, HI, IL, and NY.

Let's see a show of hands: Who's up for that?

Blessings,
Bill

I want to see someone against RTW to argue it based on this approach.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE USUAL LIBERAL RESPONSE WHEN AN ANALOGY OF THIS SORT IS MADE:

"How very typical of you feeble-minded right-wing extremists. The issue is much too complicated to be explained in such simple terms. Leave it to simpletons like you to look for simple answers to problems which are far too complex for you to understand, much less explain. You not only don't know what I'm talking about, you don't even know what you're talking about."

 

[churchmouse]

You can not offer up a simple and well defined answer for a lib-tard. They want everything so complex that it is easier to spin. I use the Lib-tard reference as I am fed up with their rhetoric and name calling. It has been hard to keep my head and not stoop to the level of the union thugs that Occupy and disrupt such as the crowd of idiots that marched through the event downtown yesterday protesting. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong venue. These idiots look for the cameras and try to push their agenda up our backsides. Tired of it, weary of the crap and comments from them that show absolutely
no independent thought or ability do do so. I know many will take offense to this. Just know that I am already offended. Get up, get a hold of your life and steer it off in a positive direction. Unions are not the only answer. I left Organized labor and am doing just fine. Same wage, better insurance and no political crap being shoved up my butt.
Just my not so humble opinion.............

 

[24Carat]

A perspective from a National source on Indiana RTW

What Indiana's 'right To Work' Bill Means For Obama, Big Labor And The U.S. | Fox News

 

[MagicKev]

It seems Democrats are only pro choice when it come to killing babies, not jobs.