I'm glad you're on board with Unions being able to bargain for a Union only shops, and to exclude non-union members from benefiting from Union negotiated contracts, but to call legislation that does this a "national right to work" is confusing, since typically "right-to-work" legislation already has a broadly understood meaning and effect, including preventing unions from entering into such agreements with employers.
You're still focused on the unions being able to do whatever they want. If an employer wants a union-only shop, that should be fine. But if an employer doesn't want to deal with a union, great. As it stands, the NLRA is really the problem.
> You're still focused on the unions being able to do whatever they want.
No, I'm focusing on what they typically do, and what laws are typically made to regulate and curtail their power, and what names the laws have typically been given. "Right-to-work", as a descriptor of legislation, explicitly refers to regulating a union's ability to enter into certain kinds of exclusive contracts. That's what it means... that's where the phrase comes from. Laws exist that prevent unions and employers from making union membership a condition of employment, because non-union members have "A right to work".
> If an employer wants a union-only shop, that should be fine
What if the employer doesn't want it... but the employees do? Why is the owner's opinion in any way RELEVANT?
If a union is an organized free association of the employees, where does an employer get the power to deny employees their free association outside of work?
What if the employer doesn't want it... but the employees do? Why is the owner's opinion in any way RELEVANT?
They're the ones running the company, paying the wages, etc. They are the relevant party purchasing the labor. Why on earth should labor be granted any legal preference?
If a union is an organized free association of the employees, where does an employer get the power to deny employees their free association outside of work?
They can associate outside of work as much as possible. What's being discussed is inside of work.
> They're the ones running the company, paying the wages, etc. They are the relevant party purchasing the labor. > Why on earth should labor be granted any legal preference?
So, being able to enter into a free association outside of work is a legal preference?
> They can associate outside of work as much as possible. What's being discussed is inside of work.
So, union organization and decisions are completely free, so long as they are not made on the clock?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
lafinjack.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2014-06-30 10:39 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
No, I'm focusing on what they typically do, and what laws are typically made to regulate and curtail their power, and what names the laws have typically been given. "Right-to-work", as a descriptor of legislation, explicitly refers to regulating a union's ability to enter into certain kinds of exclusive contracts. That's what it means... that's where the phrase comes from. Laws exist that prevent unions and employers from making union membership a condition of employment, because non-union members have "A right to work".
> If an employer wants a union-only shop, that should be fine
What if the employer doesn't want it... but the employees do? Why is the owner's opinion in any way RELEVANT?
If a union is an organized free association of the employees, where does an employer get the power to deny employees their free association outside of work?
no subject
They're the ones running the company, paying the wages, etc. They are the relevant party purchasing the labor. Why on earth should labor be granted any legal preference?
If a union is an organized free association of the employees, where does an employer get the power to deny employees their free association outside of work?
They can associate outside of work as much as possible. What's being discussed is inside of work.
no subject
> Why on earth should labor be granted any legal preference?
So, being able to enter into a free association outside of work is a legal preference?
> They can associate outside of work as much as possible. What's being discussed is inside of work.
So, union organization and decisions are completely free, so long as they are not made on the clock?
no subject
That's how it should be.