Skip to main content

View Diary: Has Gov. Kaine Sold Labor Out? (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  err (none)
    don't right to work laws just say that you dont have to be a member of a union to work at a unionized place?
    •  Pretty much (none)
      I fully support that right. Union membership should never be compulsory. In my area (downstate NY), most of the large supermarket chains have compulsory union membership. Our local representatives are corrupt and ineffective. Unions work for the workers, not the other way around. To grow the unions the leadership must stay active, transparent, and effective, and the workers will flock to them.

      (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

      by TrueBlueDem on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 11:15:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so basically (none)
        You don't believe in unions or collective bargaining..

        Without a closed shop, unions can't function because they're not bargaining for all the workers. That's not to say the representation issues you cite aren't important,  but they're completely different concerns than maintaining a legitimate collective bargaining unit.

        And your last sentence is kind of naive, because even the best, most responsive unions have to deal with employers bent on actively busting unions, even to the point of breaking the law, especially in the grocery industry.

      •  I disagree (none)
        I'm sure your union representation in your local is discouraging and is probably why you favor right to work laws. However, "right to work" may sound nice, but in the context of labor laws, they are definately designed to weaken the labor movement. It's a Republican backed issue to weaken unions, even our selected President boldly proclaimed in the campaign trail in 2000 that if it were up to him every state would be right to work.

        "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor" Reverend Joseph Lowery 02/07/06

        by Prison4Bushco on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 11:43:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't stomach this... (none)
          I'm sure your union representation in your local is discouraging and is probably why you favor right to work laws.

          Pure propaganda.  I wasn't the original poster, but such an insinuation is insulting.  I have never had to deal with pro-labour nor anti-labour management, groups, etc., but my sentiments are similar to the parent poster's.  Why should anyone be required to join a union?  I mean, seriously is there anything more against American ideals than forcing someone to join an organisation against their will?  In order to work in an industry, no less?

          To say that someone believes such a statement solely due to what they've purportedly experienced is belittling and a slur against one's sensiblilties.

          Let's reverse the statement:
          "I'm sure your union representation in your local is terrific and is probably why you favor right to work laws."

          I wouldn't want to be the target of that statement, either.

          Although the masters make the rules / For the wise men and the fools / I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. (Dylan)

          by teedz on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 11:59:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  oops, correction (none)
            oops, that reversed quote should read:

            "I'm sure your union representation in your local is terrific and is probably why you oppose right to work laws."

            Although the masters make the rules / For the wise men and the fools / I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. (Dylan)

            by teedz on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:01:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  you're right (none)
            I shouldn't have presumed to know the posters reason as to why s/he supports right to work laws. As far as my personal experience with my union, it was mixed with my local, but overall it was very positive for me in terms of economics/health care and job security. However, for me to support right to work laws based on that would be selfish. I look at the bigger picture and how unions affect workers overall. Higher wages, better health benefits, better job security, safer working conditions, etc. Right to work laws undermine the labor movement and serve to weaken unions.

            "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor" Reverend Joseph Lowery 02/07/06

            by Prison4Bushco on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:07:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  correction here too (none)
              Meant to type "oppose right to work" laws, not support

              "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor" Reverend Joseph Lowery 02/07/06

              by Prison4Bushco on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:10:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Amen (none)
              The original message poster sits back enjoying all of the benefits that come with high union density while decrying the laws that allow for those benefits.  He ought to come down here and work for a supermarket in a right to work state and sing that tune.  He wouldn't be able to afford the computer to post his messages of joy for the right to work laws.

              Austin, TX

          •  freeloaders (none)
            Should citizens be free to choose not to pay taxes?  Should they benefit from all that society offers without paying their fair share?

            If not, why do you advocate this for the workplace?  Should a worker who enjoys all of the benefits of collective bargaining be free ride on the backs of their co-workers?  I'm surprised that this even needs to be explained on a "liberal" blog.

            •  that still doesn't cut it. (none)
              If not, why do you advocate this for the workplace?  Should a worker who enjoys all of the benefits of collective bargaining be free ride on the backs of their co-workers?

              You've still failed to explain why I should be forced to join a union against my will.  If you want everyone to be on a level playing field ("enjoying all the benefits" without paying the piper), shouldn't the artificial mechanism be removed in the first place?  Are you sure that's the direction you want to take your argument?

              Although the masters make the rules / For the wise men and the fools / I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. (Dylan)

              by teedz on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 02:00:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  so I could understand where (none)
                you are coming from. Twice in this thread Eugene has said that noone can be forced to join a union. However, in some states, those that choose not to join the union are still required to pay dues as they are still benefitting from all that the union does. Is your opposition to this based on some type of free market ideology? And, are you opposed to the concept of labor unions in general?

                "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor" Reverend Joseph Lowery 02/07/06

                by Prison4Bushco on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 03:22:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Come to school in Texas (none)
            Come down to our wonderful schools in Texas where "labour" is spelled "labor" and reap all of the benefits of the right-to-work agenda.  We rank 48th in the nation in education down here.  Take a minute to look at the correlation between right-to-work laws, poverty levels, educational quality etc. and tell me again how much you love living in a State that allows freeloaders to undermine the bargaining strength and political voice of their co-workers.
    •  Right to work laws (none)
      Are specifically designed to weaken unions. That is the only reason for their existence. If Kaine supports VA's law, then he is ipso facto anti-labor. End of story.

      Federal law has outlawed the closed shop - which is what you are describing - and has done so since 1947. You cannot be made to join a union to work at any place. You can, however, be made to pay service fees to a union if your job is covered by a union contract.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 11:37:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not end of story. (none)
        Are specifically designed to weaken unions. That is the only reason for their existence. If Kaine supports VA's law, then he is ipso facto anti-labor. End of story.

        Designed to weaken unions or not, until you can logically explain to me why someone should be required to be part of an organisation against his/her will as terms of employment, your defence holds no water with me.

        Although the masters make the rules / For the wise men and the fools / I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. (Dylan)

        by teedz on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 12:04:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  because then they're free riders (none)
          They receive the benefits of collective bargaining if they're in the collective bargaining unit, whether they pay dues or not. Those "terms of employment" you cite have been bargained for by the legally recognized entity--the union. If someone continues to work in an open shop and is not a dues paying member of the union, they're getting services they haven't paid for. Moreover, the more free riders, the less collective bargaining leverage the union has.
        •  Scab (none)
          Then you and Bush share the same views of the workplace.  A workplace where employers rule by divide-and-conquer strategies.  Do you even work for a living?
          •  I do.... (none)
            In fact, I work in an industry that is known for its often long, uncompensated hours, and unmatched complexity that takes an immense physical drain:  the software industry.

            And I don't want to see it unionized either.

             

            Although the masters make the rules / For the wise men and the fools / I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. (Dylan)

            by teedz on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 01:57:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Although the comments above me... (none)
          ...make very good points, it should also be noted that you totally misread my post. As I explained, federal law says you cannot force anyone to join a union. What you can do is make them pay fees to the union for the enforcement of the contract. Otherwise you get what someone above me called a "free rider" - someone whose wages and benefits and rights and protections they get without paying for their maintenance.

          From your comment below this, I note you are not a member of a union, and I doubt you've had any sustained encounters with one, so it seems clear to me you are just talking out your ass.

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

          by eugene on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 02:14:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site