Skip to main content

Ohio defeated Issue 2. A veto on a so-called right to work bill was upheld in New Hampshire. But anti-worker forces don't give up—they've moved on to Indiana, where Republican legislators have said that passing so-called right to work is their top priority, and have advanced shady polling and arguments that don't hold water to support it. Now, the Indiana AFL-CIO is running this ad, along with a radio ad, urging Hoosiers to contact their state legislator and tell them to vote against the bill.

As a reminder, workers in states with RTW laws earn less than workers in other states, even when you adjust for cost of living. Additionally, proponents of "right to work" want you to believe that without such a law, you can forced to join a union to get a job. In fact, that is never true, by federal law. What RTW laws say, and the reason they are often called free rider laws, is that you don't even have to pay your fair share of what a union does for you. In states without free rider laws, if the union negotiates a contract that gets you a raise, or represents you in a grievance, you pay for those services even if you choose not to belong to the union. As you can guess, if you pass a law that says people can get services for free without paying for them, some of them will—but in this case, it's calculated to weaken the unions, which makes things worse for freeloaders and union members alike.

Let your friends and family in Indiana know that this push by Republicans isn't about giving anyone any rights or creating any jobs, it's about weakening unions and driving down wages for Indiana's workers.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 11:26 AM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions, Progressive Hippie, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the most classic example of false consciousness (7+ / 0-)
    As a reminder, workers in states with RTW laws earn less than workers in other states, even when you adjust for cost of living. Additionally, proponents of "right to work" want you to believe that without such a law, you can forced to join a union to get a job. In fact, that is never true, by federal law.
    ...false consciousness is essentially a result of ideological control which the proletariat either do not know they are under or which they disregard with a view to their own POUM (probability/possibility of upward mobility). POUM or something like it is required in economics with its presumption of rational agency; otherwise wage laborers would be the conscious supporters of social relations antithetical to their own interests, violating that presumption.

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare."

    by annieli on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 11:45:34 AM PST

    •  These conclusions are wrong (0+ / 0-)

      THe average wages are less in some, not all, RtoW states for a number of reasons, according to the OLM.  To start, they tend to be more conservative (southern, western) with a much higher percentage of seasonal and agricultural workers who earn less wherever they work.  

  •  Misleading at best (0+ / 0-)

    This post is misleading, let's assume not deliberately.  However if the author enjoys anything beyond a superficial grasp of labor law she knows that in fact every worker in a union shop in a non-right to work state MUST pay a "representation fee" or "fair share" fee if it is written into the contract.  She would also know that such language is written first into every new labor contract out there -- except when banned by Right to Work legislation.
    "Fair share" fees are generally around 85% of regular dues, with non-members able to "opt out" of paying for politics and new organizing. However, the union determines that percentage on the honor system.  
    Fair share payers are not allowed to vote for union officers (granted, those elections hardly matter as union officials rarely run in competitive elections) or participate in strike or ratification votes, in most unions.  And if a worker attempts to withhold their dues for poor service or refuses to sign a deduction card for any reason unions can and DO demand the employer terminate the worker.
    In non Right to Work states most unionized workers are required to pay the union a minimum of 85% of full dues or LOSE THEIR JOB whether they want a union, voted for one or feel they need one.  And if they are opposed to unionization for political, ideological or even religious reasons they are required to pay or find another job.

    The author is also somewhat misleading in that she implies that workers only pay if dues if they get a wage increase or better benefits.  In fact once a workplace is unionized workers are required to pay dues or fair share fees even if they lose pay or benefits.  

    •  As I said, you pay your (17+ / 0-)

      fair share for services rendered. You're right, of course, that sometimes -- too often, especially these days -- unions lose ground in contract negotiations, and it's true that worker dues and other payments are applied to the expenses of those negotiations as well. So you object to representation fees? On principle or because you believe they're abused? Question then I guess is whether you think that RTW is a better answer, which you seem to imply here, but I certainly don't want to put words into your mouth despite your eagerness to do so for me.

      •  praise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron

        I just wanted to praise you for interacting with comments on your diary

        You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

        by GideonAB on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Shouldn't workers who choose not to pay not be (0+ / 0-)

        included in the union contract or be represented by the union if they have a grievance?

        Seems fair and simple.

        •  You'd think. It might be complicated (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MitchF

          figuring out how to not include them in many aspects of a contract, though maybe it would be as simple as management saying "I don't care if your coworkers get a paid lunch break, you don't." But under current law, they can actually sue the union if they aren't happy with how they've been represented in a grievance!

          •  This. (Laura's post above) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laura Clawson

            This kind of thing is the key fact that people usually don't know when RTW laws are being discussed.  It should be at the front and center of every story about this (including yours- though I don't mean that as a criticism of your great diary.)  The simple fact is that in RTW states, unions are required by federal law to provide all sorts of services to non-union, non-dues-paying employees, and if they don't provide those services, the employees can sue them and win.  At the same time, unions are not allowed to require any sort of payment or compensation for those services.  I'm not aware of any other area or aspect of our economy or law that is so bizarrely and strangely unfair- mandating services but banning any effective collection of payment for the mandated services.  It just seems crazy.  RTW laws are really about imposing a legally-mandated free rider funding crisis on unions.

            The second point that needs to be made regarding these laws is that if you support RTW laws, at least in the absence of any other labor law changes (which is what it always and only means on the state level), you essentially want to abolish private sector unions.  Private sector unions hardly exist in RTW states, and once a state passes a RTW law its unions rapidly die out.  There are few exceptions to this- the big ones I can think of are unionized national companies (which would no longer be unionized if we had all states pass RTW laws), and Las Vegas hotels.  But basically, if you support these laws, it means you don't want unions around, period.  You can try to disguise the issue and say you want the RTW laws for other reasons, but the effect of these laws is to get rid of unions.  You want a union-free America.

            •  These laws are so odious (0+ / 0-)

              it's tough to write about, because there's so damn much to say, keeping focus and not losing people by going all over the place and writing too much can be tricky. So I'm trying to hit different aspects along the way so that while the whole case may not be contained in any one post, eventually it all comes together.

              To that end, another post.

            •  Prove it (0+ / 0-)

              I'd like to see the statistics that show that after RtoW legislation is passed the unions in it "rapidly die out."  Please show the numbers on that one because I don't believe it to be true.  
              Unionization levels have always been low in current RtoW states -- they didn't plummet when the law went through.  Check it out.

      •  Good unions don't need compulsory unionism (0+ / 0-)

        I object to compulsory unionism on every level, mandatory representation fees of course, but also the loss of the right to deal directly with one's employer if that is your choice.  I also object to persons being forced under union work rules that they would not choose for themselves.

        If a union is providing good service it is not at all difficult to collect dues from satisfied members who will contribute gratefully to a union that truly serves them.  Sure, there will always be a small percentage of persons who want something for nothing, but it's not uncommon for union locals in RtoW states to reach 80-90% dues payers through excellent service and genuine member ownership.  And if they don't?  They don't survive, which is how it should be.

        Over 80% of union members in this country never voted to join a union -- they only took a job where a union was already entrenched.  And in my considerable experience with union locals, far too many offer those workers nothing beyond the "privilege" of a union shop.

    •  Of course people need to pay (7+ / 0-)

      their fair share.  They pay forward for representation during grievances, their right to those things seniority gives them, contract representation, and expenses that the union incurs (like office expenses).  Without that fair share system, there would be little incentive for people to pay union dues and most people who benefit from the activities of the union would be free riders (which is what they are called) on the backs of the dues paying members.

      We pay taxes for much the same reason.  We might not like what those taxes are spend on (I'd prefer social programs to pentagon excesses), but we don't have a say.  

      Right to Work (for less) laws prevent closed shops and fair share payments to starve unions of the funds they need to exist and represent their members.  

      PS The story posted wasn't misleading at all.

      There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

      by Puddytat on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 02:49:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what about those (0+ / 0-)

        who don't want union representation and prefer to deal directly with their employer?  What if they don't trust the union rep or the grievance procedure?  What if someone feels he or she could negotiate a better deal for themselves than the union can?  

        If one steps back and sets down the union Kool-aid it's easy to see unions for what they are -- labor cartels.  And every American should be free to hold the job of their choice and negotiate their own working conditions, if they so choose.  

        •  Try this one on another way (0+ / 0-)

          What if I don't want to pay taxes?  I enjoy all the benefits of tax money spent on roads, schools, libraries, etc.  I just don't want to pay my fair share for them.  I'd prefer to pay nothing, or perhaps negotiate with the government on what I'd like to pay to ensure I pay less.

          How about traffic laws?  I think it stinks that I have to stop at red lights.  I should be able to negotiate a deal where I get to choose what lights I stop at.

          Of course those are just as silly as suggesting that a few employees can cut loose from a union representing everyone else to negotiate a deal for themselves.

          Every employee enjoys the benefits from the union contract which covers wages, benefits, and working conditions as well as senority, retirement, and other matters.  They also get representation in grievances, discipliary proceedings, and contract negotiations (employees provide information on what they want their representatives to negotiate).  

          We're all in this together.  We rise or sink as a group.  One of the biggest tools that the big shots have is a divide and conquer strategy that has everyone scrambling over a few crumbs.  We have power as a group.  As individuals, not so much.

          There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

          by Puddytat on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 10:31:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see the problem. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, LordMike, whatwoc1

      The union and the employer are entering a voluntary contract.

      The contract says, "Employer promises not to hire non-union workers or to make such workers pay a fee".

      The employer chooses to allow the fee because they want the benefit of the (generally more skilled and experienced) union workers.

      If you don't want to pay the "fair share fee", just work for an employer that did not enter into a union contract. Or you can start your own factory. Nobody is stopping you.

      (In NYC, you can go to a fancy nightclub. Even if you don't drink, you must still pay a cover charge.)

      I never understood right-wing objections to unions. Unions are the very essence of Free Markets at work. We have labor, you have cash. We sit down and do a deal. We shake and we sign.

      But Republicans whine like little bitches and call it Communism.

      •  I agree with you, but the gratuitous use... (0+ / 0-)

        ...of "bitches" prevents me from reccing you.

        The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:36:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't mean... (0+ / 0-)

          ...humans. I mean actual canines. They whine, they lick their masters' hand, they roll over on their backs and sniffle and submit to abuse.

          And it's not gratuitous. We need to drive home the message that Unions represent strength and anti-Union represents weakness.

          If you stand up for yourself and your family, you start a Union.

          If you are strong enough to demand the money that you are worth, you join a union.

          IF you cringe and whine and take whatever scraps boss-dawg leaves you, then then you're a scab.

          Liberals always lose the strength vs. weakness memes, and it is a big reason why guys in pick-up trucks would rather have minimum wage than sign a card-check. I'm tired of losing.

      •  Conservatives do not comprehend (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron, certainot, ManhattanMan

        words like "contract." They are the ex-men:

        extract
        exploit
        export
        exhaust
        explore
        explain

        They are not "with it" and they have no sense of connection.  They relate to "independence" because they are, essentially, isolates--unconnected to reality and other people. Self-reliance is their only option because, being self-centered, they have no awareness of existing within an environment of other people.  The military might conclude they are lacking in "situational awareness."  They are clueless, much as some people are color-blind. People cannot perceive what their senses do not register for them.
        Hearing and vision are equally important to them because they are their sole source of information to which they react almost automatically. They are conservatives because any change is disturbing to them. Perhaps because the lack the ability to anticipate.

        People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

        by hannah on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:26:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Every kind of wrong (0+ / 0-)

        There is nothing "voluntary" about a company signing a contract to avoid a strike, stop worksite disruption or end a corporate smear campaign.  

        And speaking from experience as opposed to conjecture, employers agree to fair share language because they have to pick their battles at the table and that one does the company minimal harm.  

        And I just simply love when otherwise progressive thinkers announce that those who don't want a union can just go out and start their own business or find another job.  Please explain how that logic doesn't apply to anyone unhappy with their pay and benefits?

    •  I agree with some of what you say (0+ / 0-)

      Certainly, this passage seems a little selective, not mentioning the times when the union does a bad job.

      "if the union negotiates a contract that gets you a raise, or represents you in a grievance, you pay for those services even if you choose not to belong to the union"

      It is unfortunate that people are compelled to pay for a bad service.

      Having said that, one has to suspect that Republicans want to weaken unions and that is the primary motivation for their actions.

      I wonder how you would respond to the argument that unions need money to operate and the system of paying dues, whilst having drawbacks, does at least provide a way of raising that money.  The argument for unions themselves is that they provide protection against bad employers.

      Without unions, the individual employee has less power.

      I would be interested in your thoughts

      You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

      by GideonAB on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 07:34:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  say what?... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron

      Where do you get your "expertise" to make the statement that a union demands the employer terminate a worker who refuses to pay fair share? No union has the power to demand an employer to fire a worker.

      In addition, you need to clarify that fair share language may be written into every new labor contract, however, it may not be in the final contract.  

      •  Clearly you know nothing about unions (0+ / 0-)

        In every contract I've ever read (hundreds) there is a clause (in non-RtoW states) that demands union membership or a fair share fee to maintain employment.  Unions can and absolutely DO demand employers dismiss workers who refuse to sign their deduction card.

        And fair share language and automatic deduction is the very first language a union demands in a labor contract and I've never read a signed contract without it.  

  •  Sounds like nancyj just doesn't like them EVIL (8+ / 0-)

    unions. Yeah, those awful unions really hurt workers wages and protection from arbitrary treatment by management (not).

    •  No, based on nancyj's comment history, (8+ / 0-)

      she's...idiosyncratic rather than anti-worker, not at all a fan of unions as institutions but in favor of worker power, albeit in this case in a way that appears to loop back on itself and make a twisted kind of common cause with anti-worker Republicans in service of her problems with unions as institutions. I think she misrepresents what I said/implied here -- this isn't a hugely in-depth piece, so there are things I devoted a phrase to that you could write a book chapter on -- and I think what she's saying is problematic in a host of ways, but...eh.  

    •  Facts are a pain, aren't they? (0+ / 0-)

      Per usual, when one tries to push back on union misinformation with facts the only route left is personal attacks.  Sigh.

      My opinions on contemporary unions, based on many years of close observation and an expert understanding of labor law clearly has no place for those who stubbornly will defend their belief in the union fairies.  

      •  Well, one might also say, (10+ / 0-)

        per usual, when one shows up at Daily Kos with what sound like rightwing talking points, even if they come from somewhere other than Scott Walker and Fox News, they get read as if that is where they came from. Like I say, I suspect you're coming from somewhere else; in this case, though, I'm not sure how much difference that makes.

      •  Facts are good (6+ / 0-)

        Try posting some.

        There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

        by Puddytat on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 02:51:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  help me out (0+ / 0-)

          I'm a busy person -- what specifically would you like me to prove?

          •  Here's your post: (0+ / 0-)
            Facts are a pain, aren't they?

            Per usual, when one tries to push back on union misinformation with facts the only route left is personal attacks.  Sigh.

            My opinions on contemporary unions, based on many years of close observation and an expert understanding of labor law clearly has no place for those who stubbornly will defend their belief in the union fairies.

            Would you like to point to any fact there?  Just innuendo and opinion.

            There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

            by Puddytat on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 10:21:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  fine, but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron

        the union movement is completely on its back in this country.  there are plenty of ways in which individual unions and the movement as a whole could better serve their members.  however, the time to take up that fight (at least on a large-scale rhetorical level) is NOT when the entire concept of unionization in the american workplace is under fire.  let's focus on basic worker rights for the moment, and we can deal with the pesky details once oh, i don't know... wal-mart stops sending in swat teams to stores trying to unionize, workers aren't laid off en masse to avoid unionization drives, employers don't drag out union elections for years to harass and derail unionization efforts, or labor laws actually have an even chance of being enforced...

    •  Ah, good old Texas, so-called Right -to-Work (9+ / 0-)

      state. Such a worker's paradise! The bosses here, think they can force you to work for NO PAY after 8 hrs, forget overtime pay. Wish we had us some of those "union fairies" that she mocks.

      If there's a reason for the rich to rule, please Lord, tell us why. -Battle of Jericol, Coal Mining Woman

      by JayRaye on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 01:41:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reason two million and nine to vote anti-GOP: (4+ / 0-)

    They've been trying to dismantle union clout for decades.

    "...be still, and cry not aloud; for it is an unholy thing to boast over slain men." Odysseus, in Homer's Odyssey

    by Wildthumb on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 07:13:23 PM PST

  •  This ad is weak. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    They don't even mention the word "Union".

    Unless it is intended to be some kind of subtle dog-whistle, I don't see how it helps.

    What we need is an ad that says, "Hey, you -- yeah, you, the guy without the health insurance! You're frickin' poor because you're not in a union!"

    But perhaps that's why I am not Chief Media Strategist for the AFL-CIO.

  •  Not right to work without pay. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 08:03:40 PM PST

  •  I think I'm uniquely qualified to comment. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm retired, so I'm not on the front line. I am a former Republican; I only recently saw the light. My last 18 years of employment were on the management side in a union shop.

    I never belonged to a union, and in my early days I was not a fan of unions. OK, I was dead set against them. This was back in the mid sixties, when unions were starting to lose their grip on manufacturing jobs.

    There is plenty of blame to be shared by both management and labor. All too often, management saw labor as the enemy. They apparently learned nothing from Henry Ford, who saw labor as a partner, not an adversary.

    Labor, too, viewed management--with much justification--as the enemy. Both labor and management lost the way. They had a chance to forge a partnership, and instead they both chose to square off as sworn enemies.

    In my opinion, the worst development occurred in the two decades following WWII. The mob succeeded in infiltrating and dominating several unions, most notably the Teamsters. The union movement was, in the public eye, seen as a group of thugs. Government is responsible for maintaining law and order, and in this instance they failed. Had they kept the Mafia out of the union picture, things might be different today.

    Bobby Kennedy was arguably the last hope to get Labor and Management back on the right track, but Sirhan Beshara Sirhan put an end to that hope.

    So much for ancient history. Anecdotal evidence is the weakest, but I will nevertheless present it. My last 18 years in the work force opened my eyes to the possibilities of labor/management cooperation. I worked for a welding supply company, Mittler Supply. Tom Mittler, the sole owner, was a paragon of how management should interact with labor. (Sadly, he died of a stroke two years ago.)

    Before I went to work for Mittler supply, I asked Tom for a copy of the union contract, in order to prepare myself for the job. Tom told me: "You won't need it; they work for Mittler Supply, not the union." Tom put his money (which was considerable) where his mouth was. Union members, just like the rest of us, shared in the company's profits. They made a good living, which Tom was proud of. They participated in three annual events as equals: the Christmas party, a golf outing, and a company picnic. More than once, Tom would tell us how he made a company decision. "I have to be able to look at myself when I shave in the morning." Although we would prepare for contract negotiations by making plans for how to keep the company going in the event of a strike, it never happened. The union part of the company were our friends. Indeed, a good part of the company's management were former union members.

    Labor and management don't have to be enemies. I have seen first hand how true this is. Yet they, for the most part, are adversaries today. Perhaps my experience was colored by the fact that I worked for a small company where the owner knew every worker by his first name.

    Labor and management cannot do without one another. Management is very tightly organized, and so should be labor, but not as enemies, rather as friends cooperating for mutual benefit. A strong labor force puts upward pressure on real wages for everybody. But to fulfill its part of the bargain, it should also strive to maximize productivity and profitability. An intelligent management team should strive to promote the financial prosperity of its workers. If every employer did that, the work force would not only help them make a profit, but would also become their best customers. Henry Ford had it right.

    Today, employers seem to hold all the cards; this is why I am today solidly in the camp of labor. The pendulum (to use a trite analogy) has swung too far in the direction of the owners of capital--way too far. Busting unions might be great fun for the 1%, but it's not good for the country. I oppose it. RTW laws are against the best interests of everybody; they weaken the position of the worker when the worker is already at a disadvantage.

    Occupy is the symptom. Fundamental reform is the cure.

    by Tim DeLaney on Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 10:37:24 PM PST

    •  You mention the Teamsters but fail to mention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tim DeLaney

      Teamsters for Democratic Union which fot an incredible fight and reclaimed their union. Ditto UMWA rank and file. There is a video Five Days That Shook The Teamsters. Also a book about the struggle, which I can't find right now. In short, if members are unhappy with their union, they need to remember that THEY ARE THE UNION. Occupy their union, and change it.

      If there's a reason for the rich to rule, please Lord, tell us why. -Battle of Jericol, Coal Mining Woman

      by JayRaye on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 01:13:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The pro-union argument isn't blanket (0+ / 0-)

    Disclaimer: My wife works in the public sector under SEIU, and I worked as an independent IT services contractor for a State level agency from 2006-2011.  

    When my contract ended, I looked for a job at the agency that I had just spent 5 years working for, becoming a qualified expert in their business and systems processes.

    Doing the same type of work, as a UNION member, with my experience and background, I would have taken a $15,000 a year pay-cut in take-home salary.  I would have gained a 6% employer paid pension contribution per year, but that doesn't help pay the bills.

    I finally stopped looking at government work, and recently started a new job at a private sector software company.  My options with the Union covered, State job would have paid me $44,000 a year.  My new job, doing roughly the same type of work, is paying me substantially more (over $20,000 more), and the benefits are nearly as good.

    So in my industry at least, a Union actually hurts my income chances, since I couldn't be hired at a higher "Tier" as a new employee due to the SEIU contract.  So, in this economy, how is that beneficial to employees?  

    In my experience, a Union works great for people already in the Union... but for those of us looking for work in Union shops, it's a hinderance.  

    My personal experience, your mileage may vary.

  •  When are we going to reject (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    conservative verbiage?  Conservatives do not know the meaning of "right."  That's why they use it like advertisers using "lite."

    The "do or die" bill would be more accurate. Or "work to starve." Or "slave to work."

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:11:34 AM PST

  •  anti union efforts start at the local RW radio sta (0+ / 0-)

    tion and i am astonished that after 20 years of constant union bashing from those radio stations there has been no noticeable free speech pushback from unions.

    US universities contradict their mission statements and endorse climate denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:53:12 AM PST

  •  How to stop this? (0+ / 0-)

    Laura- what exactly is the plan to stop this legislation from passing?  Is there a plan?

    I don't think radio and tv ads can stop this.  They're necessary, to make labor's case and to prevent public opinion from becoming lopsided, but by themselves, they aren't a plan.

    Are the Democrats in the state senate going to flee the state?  If not, why not?  This RTW law seems like a bigger deal than anything Scott Walker or Kasich or any other Republicans have done.  How can this legislation actually be stopped?

  •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

    These assholes successfully kneecapped my right to bargain for a better work place in public school in Northwest Indiana last year. Gov. Mitch "Big Jerk" Daniels is trying to burnish some cred for a possible run in 2016.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site