Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Why are liberals up in arms over Right to Work in Michigan?
The first standard argument over right-to-work laws is that they bust unions. How is this true when right-to-work laws don't outlaw unions and don't infringe on anyone's right to form or join a union? Right-to-work laws simply state a person cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. It gives workers a choice. Isn't that what liberals are about -- Freedom of choice? My body, my choice? My right to choose to live with a member of the same gender?
The second standard argument is that unions still have to represent non-union workers. As someone who has worked for Club Fed I've seen how this works. Non-union members receive the "bare bones" treatment and get representation that is marginal at best while dues-paying union members are represented zealously, even to the point of threatening lawsuits in an attempt to get management to knuckle under. The law states clearly that representation by the union has to be equal and fair, but in reality it's not even close. Union stewards are told that their role is to defend the contract -- NOT the person -- so why does it matter when the contract protects union and non-union members alike?
The third standard argument is that we have unions to thank for things like the 40-hour work week. The reason this argument is not valid today is ALL these changes brought about by the unions of the past are now codified in Federal law and apply equally to ALL workers -- both union and non-union. No one has to be a member of a union to work 40 hours a week (or to get overtime if you exceed 40 hours a week), and if unions disappeared tomorrow the laws would still be on the books.
Are there any other legitimate arguments out there? Or are the unions simply lashing back at legislation that takes away their monopoly in union-shop environments?
Dave87gn, you're obviously a liberal sycophant. Yours is the oldest, most tired, and most patently false argument around. Have you ever talked to anyone who was a union member and opted to quit their job because the union did diddly-over-squat for them -- or was in bed with management? Or are you so one-dimensional that all you can fall back on is the old tired "evil rich" argument? To use your own argument against you, people with brains dig deeper than the propaganda and investigate the truth for themselves -- something you are obviously incapable of doing.
8 Answers
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
They realize that everything they have, power to shut the company down with a strike, excessive wages, benefits, pensions will all fall apart if they don't have a "mandate" to join the Union.
Check out ANY city in America and the "unfunded" pension liabilities (house of cards), public service unions (without which the Union "proper" would've disappeared long ago), exist upon.
No better proof of them admitting it's all a Ponzi scheme is needed, than their violent protests against not being able to forcefully continue the game.
Democracy? HA, without "totalitarianism", they're history and they know it.
Source(s): The Union is like a bad Church, always eager to sign you up, get your pledge/dues, use you to bolster (brag about) their numbers ... then you become invisible & mute to them (until such time as there's a need for volunteers). Your pension, vacation & strike funds, are in G-Strings at the "Booby-Bar". - ?Lv 78 years ago
You are correct in your assumption about unions lashing back at the legislation that takes away their monopoly, and the endorsements that all members do not necessarily agree with. This also means the loss of control and the loss of the big money awarded to the union bosses.
Do you really think they care about their union members? The bosses only care about their own lifestyle, and the money the union flunky's give them. Occasionally the bosses throw them a bone to keep them happy.
Moody
- By Your CommandLv 68 years ago
If the unions had their way, they would go on strike over every little thing. For example, when I was growing up, my father was a member of the UAW, and there was not a year that went by that they didn't go on strike for something. Some I understood, like wanting an increase in pay, benefits, ect. But it was the strikes because another group was on strike that I never understood.
- BflowingLv 78 years ago
The fallacy is in the second argument which invalidates the first. These laws do require all the unions to represent all employees, and all negotiation settlements also apply to all. Its one thing to say an employee has a choice, but why should they get the benefits of paying members?
The less union members there are, the less power they have to negotiate.
By the way, all those labor laws that have been won in the past, can be repealed in the future.
- John MLv 78 years ago
It's simple, really.
Saying no to a liberal is unacceptable.
These union people are the most selfish, and violent among us.
Hope you all see the hypocrisy of the left.
- Kchess07Lv 78 years ago
This is a severe cut to the money flow to their unions. Without the money flow, they won't be able to strongly support corrupt politicians to do their bidding.
- Dave87gnLv 78 years ago
To people with brains this issue is crystal clear...Republicans want to kill unions because they support democrat..just like republicans wanted to destroy ACORN because they register poor people who vote democrat
Big Business wants to kill unions because they are a hinderance to profits...Pay the workers LESS, the CEO gets a bigger bonus...
So big business gets together with the GOP and outlaw unions...THATS THE TRUTH
- 8 years ago
Man, I hope the Koch brothers pay you to lobby for them.
Otherwise you're colluding with your own stagnant wage and loss of benefits.
