“This is a great day for Indiana’s workers and taxpayers" -- Mark Mik, President, National Right-to-Work Comm.From Politico "Indiana right-to-work bill advances":
The state House voted 55-41 for the measure, which also looks likely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, The Associated Press reported. Daniels, who gave the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, says he’d sign the bill. It could hit his desk before Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl on Feb. 5, the AP reported.From nrtwc.org:
“This announces especially in the Rust Belt, that we are open for business here,” Republican state House Speaker Brian Bosma said, according to the AP.The right-to-work measure would prohibit contracts requiring all workers to pay mandatory union dues.
“Today, the Indiana House passed the Right to Work bill by a vote of 54 to 44. Because the Senate passed an identical bill on Monday and Governor Daniels is on record in favor of the bill, it now seems certain that after the Senate approves the House bill, Indiana will become America’s 23rd Right to Work State,” continued Mix.Standard Mitch Daniels disclaimer: We love Gov. Daniels on economic issues here at LR; on social matters he pretty much sucks. He is a typical conservative nanny-stater supporting a statewide smoking ban including bars, taverns and gentlemen's clubs.
Mr. Mix continued, “The Right to Work Law will free nearly 200,000 Hoosiers who have been forced to pay tribute to a union boss for the privilege of getting up everyday and going to work so they can provide for their families.”
Today’s action will make Indiana the first Right to Work state in the Manufacturing Belt, and supporters say it will give Hoosiers a significant advantage over all of its neighbors and the rest of the 27 non-Right to Work states.
16 comments:
Bad comb over or not, credit to Daniels for getting this done.
yes
Interesting how Alaska, home of SP is a union state.
"Right (sic) to work" is anti-freedom, anti-property-rights, anti-contract.
Why do you keep lying about it and pretending it's "libertarian?"
Are you fucking kidding me? anti-freedom, anti-property rights, and anti-contract?
What about the freedom of an employer to hire whoever they want with their money?
What about my freedom to not be apart of an organization that gives millions of dollars to causes I despise?
What about the right to use my property to hire people outside an organization I despise?
What is Libertarian about giving a 3rd party an automatic slice of the economic pie for doing absolutely nothing? What is Libertarian about allowing an organization to take money out of my kids mouths, just because?
Take your unions and go to hell.
Casey, it's "for the greater good". That's all the statists understand.
You've got to excuse Knapp there Casey. He's off his meds again.
Union gangs are one of the most virulently anti_american forces afoot today. Knappler, therefore, feels a compulsive need to support them.
Every leader of every union gang in this country should be in prison for racketeering.
I don't think that is Knapp's view at all. I won't speak for him as he is good at that himself.
The point is, in a libertarian environment, individuals should be able to make contracts or not with whomever they please. This means if someone wants to be union and the owner of the company will employ union employees fine, the owner is under no obligation unless he agrees in a contract with a union. Furthermore, if an employee in the company doesn't want to be in a union, they shouldn't be forced to be in the union and they also would not be bound by any union contracts or benefits. They would create their own contract with the employer. Under this method, people are free to contract or not as they see fit. This would be a true right to work law.
Casey,
"What about the freedom of an employer to hire whoever they want with their money?"
"Right to work" outlaws the freedom of employers to hire whomever they want with their money. They are forbidden to choose to hire union members exclusively.
"What about my freedom to not be apart of an organization that gives millions of dollars to causes I despise?"
That's a freedom you've always had and still have. "Right to work" has no impact whatsoever upon it.
"What is Libertarian about giving a 3rd party an automatic slice of the economic pie for doing absolutely nothing?"
Exactly.
Right Guy,
That about covers it.
I oppose the NLRA/Wagner/Taft-Hartley.
"Right to work" is just the equally evil and authoritarian bastard child of those laws.
Under "right to work," an employer may not contract exclusively with a union, even if he wants to.
Under "right to work," an employer who contracts with a union at all is required to offer the same pay, benefits, etc. he negotiates with a union to workers who aren't members of that union.
Under "right to work," unions are required to represent non-union workers as if they were dues-paying union members.
There's nothing pro-freedom about "right to work." It is authoritarian from end to end, just like the laws that require "closed shop" and force employers to bargain with unions.
Right-To Work laws keep Unions from negotiating contracts prohibiting the employer from hiring non-union employees. It does not stop employers from hiring ONLY union employees. For example here in Wyoming we are a right to work state, but, Union Pacific railroad, one of the biggest employers in the state will not hire you unless you agree to join the Union. One of my friends just got hired on there and in order to do so he joined the Union. Now I am not sure if he could legally quit the Union now or how that all works out with Wyoming being a right to work state and all.
The point is that Union Pacific can choose to hire or fire whomever they want, within reason. But the Union cannot prohibit UP from hiring contractors or employees for that matter that are non-union if they chose to do so.
Another friend of mine is a cop for the city of Scotts-bluff in Nebraska which is also a right to work state. He is a scab and gets treated like crap because of it but because the government has decided that they are OK with non-union employees, the Union can't touch him.
I am sorry I went off earlier on you Knap, I misunderstood the point you were making, I hate Unions and take it personally when someone threatens my Right-To-Work.
This will be my last post on this as Eric doesn't want a issues debate.
I 2nd the montion against Right to Work laws.
The government has no right to dictate to a free people what type of private contract they want to enter into.
A private contract between an empoyer and his employees is not the business of the government.
The job of the governemnt is to make sure that both sides do not use violence to come to an agreement. Either union thug violence or hired thug Pinkerton style violence.
Casey,
No problem with going off on me -- like I don't do the same thing ;-)
"Right-To Work laws keep Unions [and employers] from negotiating contracts prohibiting the employer from hiring non-union employees."
Exactly. That's one reason why they're wrong.
It is also wrong for the law (NLRA) to require employers to automatically go "closed shop" if X% of their employees vote for a union.
And it's wrong for NLRA to require "negotiation in good faith." It the employer doesn't want to negotiate with a union (or anyone else) that's his business.
To me, though, the worst part of "right to work" is that it requires unions to provide services to non-members.
In a "right to work" state, if I go to work somewhere that has a union, refuse to join it, and don't pay dues, the union is required by law to represent me in disciplinary proceedings and so forth as if I had joined and was paying dues. And when the union negotiates a new wage contract with the employer, the employer has to pay me that union-negotiated wage, even though I'm not a member of the union.
That's like telling State Farm that they have to cover my car wrecks, whether I ever bought a policy from them or not.
The Senate passed Right To Work, 28-22. WOO-HOO!
Post a Comment