First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1 Jan 8, 2012
What exactly is that? I keep hearing about it lately but I'm not sure I understand what it's about, can anyone (who isn't a moron or going to point fingers and talk shit about people) explain what the "Right To Work" ruling is that our state is trying to pass? Thanks all.
Heres Johnny

Bloomington, IN

#2 Jan 9, 2012
Basically it means that if you work at a job that has a union that you can't be forced to pay union dues. But you would reap the rewards of any union contract without paying dues. It all boils down to Republicans trying to dismantle all unions. That's their main goal.PERIOD!!!! They say it would mean higher wages for workers. Which any idiot knows that's not the case.
over in Merom

Terre Haute, IN

#3 Jan 10, 2012
It's just another way for the govt. to have more say in our everday life. It seems to me that the ads I've seen for the right to work are professional people saying that more business will come if we choose right to work. I've not heard of the states who have right to work being in better places to work or that they have more jobs or that companies are rushing in to offer jobs.
wake up liberals

Cape Coral, FL

#4 Jan 10, 2012
Look at all the great union towns. Detroit sound familiar? How bout Cleveland? Look at wha the union gets you. Lazy workers that you can never get rid of, so then you have to hire another worker to do their job. Paying 2 people for the same job. Go on any union construction site and compare it to a non union site. Which is more productive?
Heres Johnny

Bloomington, IN

#5 Jan 10, 2012
Hey "wake up liberals" do youy still think the earth is flat? You are stereotyping unions. There are lazy people everywhere. I have seen bothsides on constrtuction sites.why do people want to be non union and give all power to the employer? Makes no sense.
forpetessake

Terre Haute, IN

#6 Jan 10, 2012
wake up liberals wrote:
Look at all the great union towns. Detroit sound familiar? How bout Cleveland? Look at wha the union gets you. Lazy workers that you can never get rid of, so then you have to hire another worker to do their job. Paying 2 people for the same job. Go on any union construction site and compare it to a non union site. Which is more productive?
Actually, this isn't true! Unions have mandatory drug testing, must have active drug cards, are subject to random drug testing without warning, and are TRAINED, SKILLED laborers. If you are a lazy organized laborer, you rarely work. Actually what you have said is the exact opposite of how it really is. Usually after a non-union person, who is untrained and un-skilled comes in and does a job for cheaper wages, the company hires union entities the second time around to ensure the job is done correctly!
forpetessake

Terre Haute, IN

#7 Jan 10, 2012
Gary Cooper Jr wrote:
What exactly is that? I keep hearing about it lately but I'm not sure I understand what it's about, can anyone (who isn't a moron or going to point fingers and talk shit about people) explain what the "Right To Work" ruling is that our state is trying to pass? Thanks all.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert...

Union workers are required to go through an apprenticeship to learn their particular trade. If Right To Work is passed, then let it be with the understanding that every employee that wishes to partake in union benefits without paying dues be required to be an apprentice, and pass said apprenticeship just like any other union member, so that they are adequately trained and skilled! Let them endure random drug screens, sit on an waiting list, etc. This is what they want, the same benefits union employees have without paying dues... I say let them follow the same guidelines. You pop a positive drug screen, you are banned from said worksite for one year and have to take a drug class to work again. You must attend yearly OSHA safety classes, as well as site specific safety classes and orientation. Let them disband unions and see how quickly they all bitch about doing the same nasty, dirty jobs union members have been doing for years, but do it at a lower rate of pay with no retirement benefits, insurance benefits, etc. I can't go get an accounting position, because I don't have an accounting degree. I have the option of acquiring said degree through education, but I don't get to have that job without qualifications. What is the difference here? A union electrician (for example) has been trained through an apprenticeship and passed apprenticeship courses, meaning they are trained and skilled and know safety measures. What RTW will allow is any Joe Blow off the street take those skill specific jobs without any training. This means that if Joe Blow gets hurt on the job, because he isn't as trained and diligent about following OSHA safety measures, he can sue the homeowner. Now let me ask you.. would you want your taxes done by an accountant with a degree in accounting, or lets say a ditch digger that can't add 2+2? Get where I'm going with this? RTW wants to disband unions, which will lower EVERYONES pay, not just organized laborers. That means a lower tax base for Indiana, which means poverty level financial state. It also means that since everyone will be at the same advantage (according to RTW), people who are trained and skilled will come in and take the jobs of the untrained / unskilled worker. Union members of course will be working for less, but they will still be employed because of course they are trained and skilled! It's a fact, when you interview for a job, the person that gets the job is the one who has the most experience / training. So, I would imagine, you can see where this is going. This whole RTW thing is just big corporate American wanting to control EVERYTHING and put more money in their pocket. I suggest you google some more links and read up. I am sure you will see the disadvantage of RTW once you do. Those who are in agreement with Gov. Daniels and RTW haven't educated themselves very well and are just following the conservatives like a bunch of rats following the pied piper!
Expat

Milazzo, Italy

#8 Jan 11, 2012
Right to work is personel freedom. Who has the right to require a person to join a group as a condition of employment? If your employer said you had to join a certain church to work you would take them to court. If your employer said you had to be a member of the Elks you would take them to court. If your employer said you had to be a member of the Book of the month club on your dime, you would take them to court. How is requiring membership in the union any different?
Arguments have been made here that you benefit from any union contracts made so you should pay. How about if the union screws up? Should they pay you? I know you union diehards will say they do but I've had friends whose companies have closed or relocated and their unions crawled away into the night and helped only themselves to years of union dues.
What if your union is giving money to a political candidate your oppose? Who do you complain to? From what I've heard you complain to no one.
As an example, if you were a pro life Christian and you learned your money was going to a pro choice candidate are you just supposed to take one for the team?
Make all the arguments you want but I don't feel anyone has the right to make another person join a group or spend their money in ways contrary to their beliefs just so they can have a job. In any other circumstance this would be called extortion.
Expat

Milazzo, Italy

#9 Jan 11, 2012
Just a quick note.
Hostess just filed for bankruptcy due to 955 million owed in.... Drum roll please.... PENSIONS!!! Who would have ever thought unions could take down Twinkies!? I've always heard Twinkies could survive a nuclear blast but I guess they can't survive a UNION!!!
Do you need any more information on right to work Mr. Cooper?
just me

Terre Haute, IN

#10 Jan 11, 2012
Expat wrote:
Just a quick note.
Hostess just filed for bankruptcy due to 955 million owed in.... Drum roll please.... PENSIONS!!! Who would have ever thought unions could take down Twinkies!? I've always heard Twinkies could survive a nuclear blast but I guess they can't survive a UNION!!!
Do you need any more information on right to work Mr. Cooper?
So are you against workers having pensions? Or 401K's that companies pay into? You're going to depend on SS for your old age?
What happens when they decide to do away with it? Better start figuring out how you're going to live when your 70. Hard to save much when wages will be going down.
Heres Johnny

Bloomington, IN

#11 Jan 11, 2012
Expat wrote:
Just a quick note.
Hostess just filed for bankruptcy due to 955 million owed in.... Drum roll please.... PENSIONS!!! Who would have ever thought unions could take down Twinkies!? I've always heard Twinkies could survive a nuclear blast but I guess they can't survive a UNION!!!
Do you need any more information on right to work Mr. Cooper?
You apparently don't know how a pension works and an educated guess tells me that you aren't getting one from your employer or you wouldn't be griping about it. Its when the company dips into the funds ahead of time that they get into trouble. If they would Follow the law then the money would be there. Its like a savings account. If they keep their greedy paws off of it it will be there for the workers who made them all that money. You people need to wake up!! Why do you want to slave away for twenty years and have nothing to show for it. Its not a liberal idea. Its good ole common sense that worked fine for 150 yeatrs until greed set in. Period.
Expat

Milazzo, Italy

#12 Jan 11, 2012
I am not against pensions at all, I just find it quite amusing that they are going to be the death of the indestructible Twinkie.
Sorry to disappoint you Johnny, I am currently retired and receiving a pension but it doesn't come from a union and was never negotiated by a union.
Just wondering there just me, at what point did I say I was against pensions? Just because I point out the fact that they killed the Twinkie means I somehow hate people having a pension plan and 401K? Wow, you guys sure can read a lot into this.
I did notice neither of you had anything to say about joining a group being a personal decision and not a requirement for employment. I'll read that to mean you agree with me, I mean since we seem to be reading into these posts what we want to.
If you guys disagree with me on that point and feel that forced membership for employment is fine then to keep your jobs you are now members of the Lutheran church. You don't have to attend services but you do have to make sure and get money in the collection plate every Sunday or you lose your jobs.
Have a nice day!
Expat

Milazzo, Italy

#13 Jan 12, 2012
forpetessake, the drug testing thing may be true where you work but I don't think everyone got the memo. A quick search on YouTube for union workers smoking pot produces many videos of workers drinking and smoking pot and then going back to work.
If there is random drug testing these guys don't seem to worried about it.
Expat

Milazzo, Italy

#14 Jan 12, 2012
Everyone should read this article and decide for themselves why the unions are so opposed to right to work.
The money is drying up and they need to turn those numbers around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22...
Working

Terre Haute, IN

#15 Jan 12, 2012
Where my husband works they do random drug checks and he has a 401k plus pension. They do not have a union, he doesn't pay out money that he works hard for to give to someone else so they can give to government to vote for things he doesn't want. The Right To Work bill would make it so other companies would want to move to this area without a union moving in. I say if you want to join a union or are part of a union that is your choice. For those of you will say I know nothing of unions you are are wrong, my father was in two different unions when I was growing up so I do know how a union works. Of course they work different now from the way they use to. I am hoping they pass the bill and the Democrates just stop acting like babies.
Out with the old

Vincennes, IN

#16 Jan 12, 2012
RTW is a good thing. Unions are a dead gang.
dale

Grayslake, IL

#17 Jan 12, 2012
"right to work" is a misnomer. The only thing it really means is that companies can have the "right to fire you" for no apparent reason and with no legal recourse on your end. It's confusing, but it makes it sound like the employee has all of this freedom. When in actuality, they already have it. "right to work" relieves companies of any duty to the employee.
the seer

United States

#18 Jan 12, 2012
Let me tell you what is going to happen. Large corporations are doing away with pensions. We now have 401ks. People will retire and spend thier 401k money and then have to depend on social security. The middle class will no longer exist. Its here to stay. Health care is unafordable. We are broke and cant be fixed. This country as we know it is gone. People will be forced to scavage food. Man will turn on man. We will become animals. All hope is lost. It will happen sooner than later. People who live in thier "mansions" will live in fear of someone coming along and taking away what they have. A days wages for a loaf of bread. The world will use its nuclear capabilities to destroy itself. For all practical purposes we are all dying its just a few years away.
Travis

Terre Haute, IN

#19 Jan 12, 2012
dale wrote:
"right to work" is a misnomer. The only thing it really means is that companies can have the "right to fire you" for no apparent reason and with no legal recourse on your end. It's confusing, but it makes it sound like the employee has all of this freedom. When in actuality, they already have it. "right to work" relieves companies of any duty to the employee.
If you are working and doing your job like expected and not causing BS drama, then there should be no worry of getting fired! you are just re-enforcing a point made above that the unions protect the lazy butt-kissers that get paid more than they are worth and the company can't replace him with somone willing to do the job!
Expat

Milazzo, Italy

#20 Jan 13, 2012
Dale is right, right to work is a misnomer. They should call it the right to not be forced into a union if you don't want to be.
The only problem with that is it's just too long and doesn't sound as good as right to work.
Richard Trumka can spin this all he wants, SEIU can protest until they're blue in the face but at the end of the day it boils down to the fact that no one should be required to join a group or spend their money on things they don't agree with just so they can feed their family.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sullivan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jack Alexander Tue Major peepee 2
Casey's general store Mon Sullivan crack head 4
Fergusion Mon Popo 5
New Mexican Restront in town Mon Dumb dumb 7
Letty ? Mon Malinda 4
Stress games to Double at the prison Dec 10 N tha butt 2
Prison guards on food stamps Dec 10 Marshal 4
Sullivan Dating
Find my Match

Sullivan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Sullivan News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Sullivan

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:52 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:52AM
Colts' 3rd-Down Struggles Leading to Offensive Slump
NBC Sports 8:10 AM
Chandler Catanzaro kicks way to NFC special teams honors
NBC Sports 8:58 AM
Bucs add veteran defensive end Lawrence Sidbury
Bleacher Report 9:43 AM
Offseason Should Start with Trading for Cutler
Bleacher Report11:00 AM
Jaguars, Titans Battle for No. 1 Pick as AFC South Tries to Catch Andrew Luck