Posted on 03/11/2015 4:55:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A Wisconsin business owner upset over enactment of a right-to-work law and other policies says he is expanding in Minnesota because the economic policies there are more conducive for his operation.
James Hoffman, president of Hoffman Construction in Black River Falls, said Monday that he was accelerating plans to expand an office in Lakeville, Minnesota, that currently has two full-time employees. […]
Hoffman says the decision is based on business, not politics. …
(Excerpt) Read more at minnesota.cbslocal.com ...
In other words, he is a crony capitalist like James Taggart.
2 employees....I once had a service station in Indianapolis with 16 employees.....
I am a union carpenter(Local 804) in Wisconsin. The “right to work” bill was opposed by over 500 union construction companies in Wisconsin, for good reason.
As a union carpenter, I get no holiday pay, no sick day pay, no vacation pay, or “personal time off” pay. The saying is “the money stops when the hammer drops.
Construction unions are FAR REMOVED from what most people think of as “unions”.
In essence, a construction union is little more temp agency for the contractors.
You need two hundred carpenters for a mill shut down over the Fourth of July weekend? Call the hall. The men will be there, and they will be highly trained, highly skilled workers.
Like most of you, I think that most unions went “crazy” in their demands, but when it comes to construction, its a different ball game. One of the biggest union contractors in Wisconsin is wondering if this new law will allow him to survive.
This contractor understands that unless he has a highly skilled workforce at his beck and call, his business is in jeopardy.
What was the “good reason”?
Do you think it’s okay for unions to get dues from non-members?
What’s your view on closed shops?
The “good reason” is because these companies understand that the current set up was a benefit to them. I mean, why else would they have also been against the “right to work” law?
You asked if I was against unions getting dues from non union members.
Well, that depends.
In a “right to work” state, unions are compelled, by law, to represent those people who chose not to pay dues. I say that if you don’t want to pay dues, then you should have to negotiate your own pay and benefits with the employer, instead of getting a free ride from the union.
This “glitch” is no accident. If those that wanted out of the union had to represent themselves, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because “right to work” would be a non issue.
Then, it would be fair. As currently applied, it isn’t.
Or he's on the take somehow.
Where do you get this stuff from? Unions forced to represent people who refuse to pay dues? Is this what your union’s telling you?
RTW is about people who do not join the union not being forced to pay dues to a union. It’s also about no forced closed shops by law.
OK, looks like you got that part right, so I take it back. Someone who isn’t part of the agreement and does not pay into it should represent him/herself indeed. That’s government interference in a contract and contract law in and of itself.
Looks like it’s more convoluted than I thought, thanks to the NRLA and the USSC (Communication Workers v. Beck). Real tug of war between the federal government and states here; the unions still benefit and the labor force is out in the cold.
What about closed shop law, again?
Do your homework. People that chose not to join a union still get union representation. If they did not, I would have no quarrel with it.
Thanks for your response. I believe that most people believe “right to work” means an individual will represent themselves.
That is not the case.
What about the closed shop law? I am against it. However, this law FORCES unions to negotiate wages and benefits for non members.
If they believe they are better off not being in a union, I am OK with that.
Let them put their money where their mouth is.
Why would they want it? What does paying a man more benefit them?
You can search “Davis bacon act” and “prevailing wage”; unionized contractors are like mafia. Sorry the device one on now . Makes it hard to copy links. Please respond if you don’t find anything useful and I’ll get back to you.
And again, I see no correlation between what a contractor has to pay under prevailing wage as a benefit to him.
Unless you can point it out, I don’t see the connection.
The contractor has to pay the prevailing wage (union) anyway so that is just calculated into the bid. That cuts the local competition out of bidding because not only can they not underbid on wages, they have to change wages paid for different positions, change the benefits, etc. And be able to do the massive paperwork involved. The contractors are fined heavily for any prevailing wage infraction. So non union companies usually don’t bid on gov’t contracts. Some places have project labor agreements where the gov’t can only use union labor. So the unionized contractors have a big benefit because they land all the big gov’t contracts.
It has been my experience that you are wrong. I routinely see non union companies bid(and win) prevailing wage jobs.
And since the wage is set for all, it becomes a matter of what profit margin the company sets for itself when it bids. This would be a determent to the contractors, not a asset.
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.