Comment on Will Republicans try another Federal Right to Work attempt?
abbadon420@lemm.ee 10 months ago
A quick Google search:
In the context of labor law in the United States, the term right-to-work laws refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions.
And I still don’t know what right-to-work laws are.
They prevent you from having to join a union to work at a company. And you don’t have to pay dues either.
You can effectively benefit from the unions bargaining without supporting the union - which if enough people do that kills the union (the goal of the law).
“Right to Work” simply means “Anti-Union”.
Hopefully, I’m not wrong, but basically unions typically require Members Pay dues out of income. Right to work essentially forbid that practice making do payments optional. Which drives down the union revenue
Unions typically have an agreement where employees don’t have to join the union but they still have to pay a fee equivalent to union dues, and the employer can’t pay non-members more than union members, or other similar restrictions.
The idea is to remove the ability for the employer to offer an advantage to non-members.
TLDR it’s an essential part of making a functional union.
Right to Work means you can have a union job but not join the union. You have the right to”right to work” without being a union member or paying any union dues. Generally it means you get all the benefits without contributing but also unions are usually a lot weaker since so many people opt out, so also the benefits are lesser. Because it is governed by state-level laws, details vary from state to state.
That’s the whole fucking point. The name sounds like its a good thing though, right? So I’m sure that means it’s good…
But no, “Right to Work,” just means that employees are allowed to choose not to pay union dues (or even partial dues), despite receiving all of the benefits of being in that collective bargaining bloc.
If a workplace unionizes, all employees at that level become part of the same collective bargaining bloc, and the union will protect them. If you want to work in that position, you have to be a member of the union at some level (unless you are a government employee since the Janus SCOTUS decision).
Probably just made it more confusing but hopefully not.
Is it in Colorado? If it is, it’s a good thing. If not, it’s a bad thing. Right to work is a bad thing.
Colorado does not have Right to Work
Aye, so right to work is a bad thing.
Yes
LethalSmack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Right to work is: A right to be fired at any point for any reason or no reason at all
The goal is to get around any union protections that require things like a legitimate reason to be fired from a job.
It also has the added bonus of drastically reducing the benefits of unions and making them much easier to prevent.
Dagrothus@reddthat.com 10 months ago
I love how we name laws that really mean the exact opposite of what their name implies. Very american.
eezeebee@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Land of the free
DisguisedJoker@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Image
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
Travelator@thelemmy.club 10 months ago
lars@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
They could have used any of the million other nouns. It’s worse than cheap satire.
Lennny@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Very human. Democratic Republic of Korea…Congo…lol.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The way I try to remember it is that it comes from the employers perspective:
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Being fired for any or no reason is at will employment.
Right to work has nothing to do with that. It’s about allowing people to not pay union dues. Those people are still protected by the union contract.
LethalSmack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’re right. I updated the comment
MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’re conflating “at will employment” with “right to work” laws.
LethalSmack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’re right. I updated the comment
PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
I mix these two up as well - thanks for the clarification.
mesamunefire@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No union I’ve ever been part of required me being in it in order to work at a place. It was always optional. So strange.
WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Are you in a right to work state? That might be why, at least in Oregon when I got a job as a cashier it automatically made me a part of the union.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
Then you are in a “right to work” state. And FYI, you still benefit from that union as you are still ostensibly part of the same collective bargaining bloc, and under the same contract, as the union workers.
So basically you’re getting the benefits of being in a union without having to pay for it. Sounds great, right?
Great way to get people to leave unions en masse, and starve them of funding.