Posted on 02/07/2017 12:24:03 PM PST by 198ml
Senate Republicans on Monday advanced a measure that would add Colorado to the list of so-called "right to work" states, prohibiting mandatory union membership.
Despite opposition from throngs of union members and leaders, as well as many in the business world, Republicans on the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee pushed the bill along on a party-line vote.
Senate Bill 55, sponsored by Sen. Tim Neville of Littleton, would prohibit an employer from requiring someone to join an organized labor group or pay dues as a condition of employment. It also would create civil and criminal penalties for violations.
(Excerpt) Read more at gazette.com ...
Ping!
Go Colorado!!
My state (KY) just went “right to work”. What I find fascinating is that these laws actually seem to INCREASE wages. I don’t know the dynamic that causes that, though.
I have a dumb question for everyone. When Right to Work passes, do non-union hires get the same pay and benefits as union members?
Hickenlooper will veto it.
As did mine (MO) yesterday when Gov. Greitens signed the right to work bill into law. Of the eight states that border Missouri, only Illinois is non right to work.
> higher wages ... dynamic that causes that
Reminds me of the effect that taxes and regulations have on economic activity. They suppress it. When a union sticks itself in between employees and business, the business is demotivated. Also, businesses would often rather compete with the union than play ball with it. To compete, one has to exceed the other guy’s (union’s) offer.
A company does not have to pay more than union wages in a union state.
They are free to pay more to good workers in a right to work state and with real competition may actually do so.
Yes. All workers who are members of a bargaining unit receive the same wages and benefits whether they belong to the union or not. I will give you an example. For several years I was president of the faculty union at the college I work. There are seventy faculty members who are part of the bargaining unit and covered by the contract-that is full time faculty (adjuncts are not covered by the contract). About 55 faculty are members of the union and pay dues. The union members vote on the contract and elect the union officers.
The bargaining team (five union members) sit down with management and negotiate a contract that includes salaries,
health insurance, pension contributions etc. One the contact is approved by the union members, management, and our board of trustees-it covers everyone union member and
non-union member alike. Federal and state laws make it clear that such a contract covers all employees that are part of that bargaining unit, in this case faculty member.
If money collected from dues is used for political agenda the some of the workers will never be represented by their own money and even opposed by it....
Just like how taxes are used...
Unions are just like sub goverment entities.... for socialists.
Your answer is incorrect. A right to work state may still have unions and collective bargaining agreements. By federal law those agreements cover all employees that are part of the bargaining union,whether they pay union dues or non.
A right to work law does not negate collective bargaining agreements or exclude non-dues paying members from the terms of the agreement.
Yes.
Republicans control Senate by one. Demwits control House by nine and a Dem Gov. Prognosis dim. But I applaud the courage exhibited by Republicans.
Why would a non-member of a union be included in any pay, benefits or work conditions negotiated by the union?
Why would a non-member of a union be included in any pay, benefits or work conditions negotiated by the union?
> Federal and state laws make it clear that such a contract covers all employees that are part of that bargaining unit
utterly insane, and in no way conservative nor following any principal of self-reliance and individuality.
Requirement to be in a union to work someplace? That should be up to the employer (without coercion of any kind).
Participating in conditions negotiated by the union, without membership in the union? Freeloading.
That’s really stupid.
YES!
If an employee doesn't have to pay union dues, that means that, even if wages stay flat, that's still more take-home pay for the employee.
Also, individual employees have more incentive to increase productivity to whatever level they're comfortable with, without being influenced by union leaders.
Thus, since productivity is probably higher in non-union environment, that means employers can afford to pay a higher wage.
So it's logical to me that "right to work" states could result in higher wages...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.