In response to:

What Does 'Right to Work' Really Mean?

Dot462 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 9:39 PM
Once a union has gained bargaining rights, they can negotiate a contract which says that a new employee must join the union within a certain time period, or be a nonmember under "agency shop." If the contract negotiated says dues are deducted from the employee's wages and remitted to the union, that is because the union has negotiated certain benefits and wages and if employees were not to join the union they would be "free riders." Private business owners can hire whomever they want. If they want union employees, they can hire them. That's how it works in Nevada, a right-to-work state. An employee doesn't have to be a union member to be hired.
kozzzer Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 8:46 AM
A union shop agreement is an agreement between and employer and a union to make sure that the employer only hires union members, or that all new hirees join the union. Right to work laws ban these agreements.

Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract. If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the legislature the right to interfere?

Right-to-work laws limit workers’ and employers’ freedom of contract. They prevent workers and employers from making mutually beneficial agreements. They don’t belong in a free society.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 8:28 AM
WRONG AGAIN;
"right to work" says that an employer may not be FORCED to fire a worker who refuses to join the union.

Employers prefer non-union workers.
I doubt you could name a specific company that desires a union and only union workers. One where the union was not originally forced upon them by vote.
kozzzer Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 10:34 PM
"An employee doesn't have to be a union member to be hired."

And what I am saying is that an employer should have the ability to refuse employment to someone who does not join the union.

Right to work says that an employer may not fire someone for refusing to join a union.

At this point in time, most people are probably familiar with the 'Right to Work' drama that ensued last week in Michigan. Through a debate with a staunch pro-union friend of mine, it dawned on me that perhaps there were some people who might not actually understand what it means to be pro 'Right to Work.'

At first glance, how could anyone be against a right to work? Who would be against someone working as the term itself invokes a pro-freedom sentiment found in the American democratic tradition. 'Right to Work' advocates believe these laws promote job creation, generate investment...