Indiana poised to enter right-to-work...

Indiana poised to enter right-to-work era as unions prep protest amid Super Bowl festivities

There are 58 comments on the The Washington Post story from Feb 1, 2012, titled Indiana poised to enter right-to-work era as unions prep protest amid Super Bowl festivities. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

State lawmakers were poised Wednesday to pass legislation that would make Indiana the Rust Belt's first right-to-work state and prohibit labor contracts requiring workers to pay union representation fees.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
halito

Winnemucca, NV

#1 Feb 1, 2012
Are there other right to work states?

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#2 Feb 1, 2012
Prior to Indiana, 22 states were right-to-work states. An asterisk indicates that right-to-work is in the state constitution.

Alabama, Arizona*, Arkansas*, Florida*, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi*, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma*, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming
tom

Faribault, MN

#3 Feb 1, 2012
I am all for the right to work concept....Just dont get why you would want to work at a place that has a union with great pay and great benefits and you want to do same work and not be in union and make alot less then the union workers.....I got thru a right to work union factory down south....The union forklift drivers made $19 an hour and had great benefits...the non-union forklift drivers made $15 and had to pay for 40% of there benefot package.....I am all for right to work just dont see why you would want to make less...

“Don't Tread on Me!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#4 Feb 1, 2012
What they're not telling you is that thousands are already downtown at the SuperBowl Village and NFL experience-----AND and the unions bused in thousands of folks this morning, who are currently facing down cops in riot gear as they are determined to march through Superbowl Village and disrupt festivities. They have fecking tear gas guns out, and I have family and friends downtown right now. This could turn into one big feckaroo any minute.
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

#5 Feb 1, 2012
tom wrote:
I am all for the right to work concept....Just dont get why you would want to work at a place that has a union with great pay and great benefits and you want to do same work and not be in union and make alot less then the union workers.....I got thru a right to work union factory down south....The union forklift drivers made $19 an hour and had great benefits...the non-union forklift drivers made $15 and had to pay for 40% of there benefot package.....I am all for right to work just dont see why you would want to make less...
If it's clear that unions ensure better wages and benefits... why would you support "right to work" legislation?
tom

Faribault, MN

#6 Feb 1, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's clear that unions ensure better wages and benefits... why would you support "right to work" legislation?
Because people should be free to be TOTAL AND COMPLETE idiots and make less if they want... I mean if you take a job at a factory and the union wage is $15 starting wage and the non-union wage is $10 an hour staring.....If you pick the $10 an hour your a moron and deserve less.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#7 Feb 1, 2012
Paisley_Posey wrote:
What they're not telling you is that thousands are already downtown at the SuperBowl Village and NFL experience-----AND and the unions bused in thousands of folks this morning, who are currently facing down cops in riot gear as they are determined to march through Superbowl Village and disrupt festivities. They have fecking tear gas guns out, and I have family and friends downtown right now. This could turn into one big feckaroo any minute.
I hope your family will be okay (and I'm sure they will), but these union members are merely exercising their Constitutional rights.

Although why the state legislature would pass this a week before Indy is about to get more attention than at any time in it's history is a valid question.

LOL!!

just rememberr as you enjoy the big game, that all the people who play it, and all the people who broadcast it have one thing in common:

They all have good UNION jobs!!

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#8 Feb 1, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope your family will be okay (and I'm sure they will), but these union members are merely exercising their Constitutional rights.
Although why the state legislature would pass this a week before Indy is about to get more attention than at any time in it's history is a valid question.
LOL!!
just remember as you enjoy the big game, that all the people who play it, and all the people who broadcast it have one thing in common:
They all have good UNION jobs!!
Union membership is NOT neither a right nor Constitutionally protected.

I have no problem with you or anyone else joining a union as long as the employer is free to replace you with someone who is willing to work for less. If not you are creating a local monopoly in labor for your own benefit. I am sure you would be outraged at a company creating a local monopoly in a product you wanted or needed and jacked up the price.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#9 Feb 1, 2012
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Because people should be free to be TOTAL AND COMPLETE idiots and make less if they want... I mean if you take a job at a factory and the union wage is $15 starting wage and the non-union wage is $10 an hour staring.....If you pick the $10 an hour your a moron and deserve less.
Please see my post #8 above.

“Don't Tread on Me!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#10 Feb 1, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope your family will be okay (and I'm sure they will), but these union members are merely exercising their Constitutional rights.
Although why the state legislature would pass this a week before Indy is about to get more attention than at any time in it's history is a valid question.
LOL!!
just rememberr as you enjoy the big game, that all the people who play it, and all the people who broadcast it have one thing in common:
They all have good UNION jobs!!
They passed it to get it off the table for the actual Superbowl. Signed into law this afternoon, it won't be an issue. We had a teamster boss here threatening to bring in 200 semis to shut down the Superbowl. Thank you for you well wishes.
You don't have to tell me about union jobs. My dad, his brother, my FIL and his brother are all retired UAW. My grandfather retired from the Pipefitter's union and my SIL is a union Ironworker. Have a cousin in the Stagehand union.
Except for my SIL and deceased grandfather, we are all pro Right to Work. Please don't get mad at me, lol.
But I do have a good perspective from the inside, and plenty of statistics to back my position. If you care to, I can explain.

Right to free assembly is great. And they're exercising it. Occupier here. But I don't think it does the union cause any favors, to disrupt football, especially not in this state at this time. Public opinion will backfire on them. I'm also divorcing myself from the Occupy movement in Indianapolis because of this CO-OPT/Alliance with the unions.
Have a great Wednesday.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#11 Feb 1, 2012
LonePalm wrote:
<quoted text>
Union membership is NOT neither a right nor Constitutionally protected.
I have no problem with you or anyone else joining a union as long as the employer is free to replace you with someone who is willing to work for less. If not you are creating a local monopoly in labor for your own benefit. I am sure you would be outraged at a company creating a local monopoly in a product you wanted or needed and jacked up the price.
Free speech, and the right to assemble, are most assuredly Constitutional rights. I was talking about demonstrations during the Super Bowl.

But in fact, I think that collective bargaining and Union membership ARE protected under the Constitution.

And I think you're a little confused. Companies that have union labor do so because they signed union contracts, not because they were forced to hire unions under any law. So no, I don't think that employers who sign labor contracts should be able to renege on them at their discretion, on an employee-by-employee basis.

This law is not about protecting workers. It's about union-busting by conservative legislatures. They want to use legislation to diminish the legal rights of unions. Period.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#12 Feb 1, 2012
Paisley_Posey wrote:
<quoted text>They passed it to get it off the table for the actual Superbowl. Signed into law this afternoon, it won't be an issue. We had a teamster boss here threatening to bring in 200 semis to shut down the Superbowl. Thank you for you well wishes.
You don't have to tell me about union jobs. My dad, his brother, my FIL and his brother are all retired UAW. My grandfather retired from the Pipefitter's union and my SIL is a union Ironworker. Have a cousin in the Stagehand union.
Except for my SIL and deceased grandfather, we are all pro Right to Work. Please don't get mad at me, lol.
But I do have a good perspective from the inside, and plenty of statistics to back my position. If you care to, I can explain.
Right to free assembly is great. And they're exercising it. Occupier here. But I don't think it does the union cause any favors, to disrupt football, especially not in this state at this time. Public opinion will backfire on them. I'm also divorcing myself from the Occupy movement in Indianapolis because of this CO-OPT/Alliance with the unions.
Have a great Wednesday.
Yes, I'd be curious to know why a family so staunchly union would support right to work legislation. Thanks.

And again-- the NFL and NBC are both union employers! What better time to address the issue, than a top-tier entertainment event made possible by union labor?
tom

Faribault, MN

#13 Feb 1, 2012
LonePalm wrote:
<quoted text>
Please see my post #8 above.
Yea if an employer wants to pay way less great...If we keep doing that soon no one will be able to afford what that said company makes.....Oh well...I am all for right to work....But your a moron if you have option to work union and you dont....Why work for less?? Why strugle to keep roof over ehad when you can have it better? Ceo,s and top execs get massive raises and huge bonuses...Why cant the workdingclass make more each year??

“Don't Tread on Me!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#14 Feb 1, 2012
http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/0...

For one thing, they stepped over the line and became incredibly powerful lobbyists. Should've stayed OUT of government. For over 40 years, my dad paid out tens of thousands of dollars to a powerful lobby who then lobbied against his own personal political beliefs. FOUL.

Numbers don't lie, let's look at some;

Annual Dues Paid to Unions:$8,217,838,676
Total Union Assets:$8,804,794,935
Total Spending
Representational Activities:$4,081,097,858
Political Activities:$579,624,489
External Contributions:$321,121,214
Overhead:$3,905,927,269
Unions that fail to pass Department of Labor audits: 92%

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Labor Relations Board indicates that less than 10 percent of currently unionized employees voted for the union in their workplace.

Total union officers and staff members: 173,503 people
Total compensation paid to union officials and officers:$1,141,540,980
Total compensation paid to union employees:$2,562,757,481

Major Unions with White Presidents: 94%
Major Unions with Male Presidents: 89%
<this to show their hypocrisy in claiming they care about minorities>

Unfair Labor Practices filed against unions in the last 10 years: 65,529
Duty of Fair Representation 32,235
Hiring Halls 2,236
Actions of Picketers 1,742
Union Security Related (including Beck) 1,636
Coercive Statements 1,376

Right to Work doesn't bust unions as much as it does make the corrupt power-mongering bosses have to CARE what the workers think and want.

“Don't Tread on Me!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#15 Feb 1, 2012
To dispel any myths that Right to Work Supporters don't like higher incomes, benefits or employment numbers;

&#8206;% Growth in Non-farm private sector jobs 1999-2009:
RTW States:+3.7%
Unionized States:-2.8%

Growth in Real Manufacturing GDP in yr 2000-2008 in 2000 $$:
RTW States: 20.9%
Unionized States: 6.5%

&#8206;% Growth in real personal income:
RTW States: 28.3%
Unionized States: 14.7%

New privately owned single family unit authorizations in 2009 per 1000 residents 2009:
RTW States: 1.9
Unionized States:.9

TANF/Welfare recipients per 1000 residents 2009 average:
RTW States: 7.6
Unionized States: 17.3

&#8206;% Growth in # of people covered by private employment-based health insurance:
RTW:+.9%
Unionized States:-6.9%

Numbers don't lie. These are Dept of Labor statistics. I am PRO worker, all the way. Besides, where was the union when Government Motors cut all my relatives' benefits; no dental coverage, no eye coverage, HUGE deductibles and a huge % of prescription drug coverage lost.
AND Dad could still lose up to 70% of his pension in the bankruptcy judge's decision. Still waiting.

The union backed the POTUS that did that....
Unbelievable

Bethesda, MD

#16 Feb 1, 2012
tom wrote:
I am all for the right to work concept....Just dont get why you would want to work at a place that has a union with great pay and great benefits and you want to do same work and not be in union and make alot less then the union workers.....I got thru a right to work union factory down south....The union forklift drivers made $19 an hour and had great benefits...the non-union forklift drivers made $15 and had to pay for 40% of there benefot package.....I am all for right to work just dont see why you would want to make less...
Sorry dude...Hate to burst your lie... but federal laws states that a business in a Right To Work State has to pay employees the same and give the same benefits whether they are in the union or not. This is why unions can't stand Right To Work States.
Unbelievable

Bethesda, MD

#17 Feb 1, 2012
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Because people should be free to be TOTAL AND COMPLETE idiots and make less if they want... I mean if you take a job at a factory and the union wage is $15 starting wage and the non-union wage is $10 an hour staring.....If you pick the $10 an hour your a moron and deserve less.
Sorry.. you're bs lies are just that LIES!!
Unbelievable

Bethesda, MD

#18 Feb 1, 2012
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Free speech, and the right to assemble, are most assuredly Constitutional rights. I was talking about demonstrations during the Super Bowl.
But in fact, I think that collective bargaining and Union membership ARE protected under the Constitution.
And I think you're a little confused. Companies that have union labor do so because they signed union contracts, not because they were forced to hire unions under any law. So no, I don't think that employers who sign labor contracts should be able to renege on them at their discretion, on an employee-by-employee basis.
This law is not about protecting workers. It's about union-busting by conservative legislatures. They want to use legislation to diminish the legal rights of unions. Period.
Yes you are correct.. Free speech and the right to assemble are protected under the Constitution... However you infringing on my rights is against the law. And when you are blocking me for entering an event you are infringing on my rights!

And no, FORCING someone to pay others to keep their jobs is NOT in the Constitution. You want to join a union and pay them to speak for you fine.. but don't FORCE me to!

I have the RIGHT TO WORK without being FORCED to pay for my job!
Unbelievable

Bethesda, MD

#19 Feb 1, 2012
Paisley_Posey wrote:
http://www.laborunionreport.co m/portal/2011/01/fighting-to-f ree-workers-paychecks-from-uni on-bosses-advancing-the-right- to-work/
For one thing, they stepped over the line and became incredibly powerful lobbyists. Should've stayed OUT of government. For over 40 years, my dad paid out tens of thousands of dollars to a powerful lobby who then lobbied against his own personal political beliefs. FOUL.
Numbers don't lie, let's look at some;
Annual Dues Paid to Unions:$8,217,838,676
Total Union Assets:$8,804,794,935
Total Spending
Representational Activities:$4,081,097,858
Political Activities:$579,624,489
External Contributions:$321,121,214
Overhead:$3,905,927,269
Unions that fail to pass Department of Labor audits: 92%
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Labor Relations Board indicates that less than 10 percent of currently unionized employees voted for the union in their workplace.
Total union officers and staff members: 173,503 people
Total compensation paid to union officials and officers:$1,141,540,980
Total compensation paid to union employees:$2,562,757,481
Major Unions with White Presidents: 94%
Major Unions with Male Presidents: 89%
<this to show their hypocrisy in claiming they care about minorities>
Unfair Labor Practices filed against unions in the last 10 years: 65,529
Duty of Fair Representation 32,235
Hiring Halls 2,236
Actions of Picketers 1,742
Union Security Related (including Beck) 1,636
Coercive Statements 1,376
Right to Work doesn't bust unions as much as it does make the corrupt power-mongering bosses have to CARE what the workers think and want.
Some really good information here.

Thanks!
Unbelievable

Bethesda, MD

#20 Feb 1, 2012
Paisley_Posey wrote:
To dispel any myths that Right to Work Supporters don't like higher incomes, benefits or employment numbers;
&#8206;% Growth in Non-farm private sector jobs 1999-2009:
RTW States:+3.7%
Unionized States:-2.8%
Growth in Real Manufacturing GDP in yr 2000-2008 in 2000 $$:
RTW States: 20.9%
Unionized States: 6.5%
&#8206;% Growth in real personal income:
RTW States: 28.3%
Unionized States: 14.7%
New privately owned single family unit authorizations in 2009 per 1000 residents 2009:
RTW States: 1.9
Unionized States:.9
TANF/Welfare recipients per 1000 residents 2009 average:
RTW States: 7.6
Unionized States: 17.3
&#8206;% Growth in # of people covered by private employment-based health insurance:
RTW:+.9%
Unionized States:-6.9%
Numbers don't lie. These are Dept of Labor statistics. I am PRO worker, all the way. Besides, where was the union when Government Motors cut all my relatives' benefits; no dental coverage, no eye coverage, HUGE deductibles and a huge % of prescription drug coverage lost.
AND Dad could still lose up to 70% of his pension in the bankruptcy judge's decision. Still waiting.
The union backed the POTUS that did that....
More great info!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Top Stories - Super Bowl Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama Family Super Bowl Snacks: Nachos, Guacamole (Jan '12) Nov 10 cadescove99 6
News Lady Gaga avoids politics at Super Bowl halftim... (Feb '17) Nov 4 Story time 13
News NFL warns Texas over 'bathroom bill': No Super ... (Feb '17) Feb '17 YouDidntBuildThat 5
News Lady Gaga's Super Bowl show was only as politic... (Feb '17) Feb '17 Ryan 1
Super bowl win (Feb '17) Feb '17 nms642 2
News Super Bowl party penalties: Is your insurance r... (Feb '17) Feb '17 jadooxtv 2
News NFL legends star in Super Bowl spot (Jan '15) Jan '17 SuperPharts 5
More from around the web