there is a Committee preparing to put forth legislation for "the right to work" as a

[testsubjectalpha]

if done so of her own 'free will', I can respect that choice.

I believe what happened is that she saw first-hand the worth of what the union was doing and decided that joining it was the fair and equitable thing to do.

[MisterVeritis]

I thought you "originalists" were all about state's rights.

Not exactly. We are about a limited Federal government. This one is out of control and is trying to mandate union membership. This counters that.

[jet57]

That is a common misconception. I did some research on this and here is what I found:


"A "closed shop" requires its employees to be union members as a condition to being hired for a position covered by the bargaining unit and does not allow the employer to hire anyone not willing to join the union. The most extreme example of the closed shop is the hiring hall, where employers are required to recruit union members from the hiring hall, and cannot hire employees directly. The Taft-Hartley Act made a closed shop illegal in 1947."


All About Unions - Workplace Fairness

I'm sorry to tell you that it is not a common misconception. I spent a career with the Teamsters and worked very closely with the longshoreman/ warehouseman's union and in both cases we had exclusive hiring rights through our hiring halls. These days with the closing of some hiring halls in other unions, companies hire off the streets, but their people are required by contract to join the union and pay dues.

[FindersKeepers]

When I was working for Yellow Freight Systems (Now YRC) in Jacksonville Florida I had the right not to join the union. However, I still had to pay full union dues, as "hiring hall fees". I was actually advised by the terminal manager that I would be better off if I joined the union they would harass me endlessly if I did not and I would be paying for the privilege anyway. I never felt the need to belong to a union as my goal was to always do more than I was being paid for in order to advance up the ladder which actually won't happen if you belong to a union.

And this is what happened when Yellow went from terminal level rate clerks to automated rating. I was not asked to go to Corporate because I was a union member and they didn't want any union members. I was asked if I wanted to be the Weight and Inspection manager in Savannah, a management job. However, I wanted to go into business for myself and the rest is history.

This is why I oppose unions on a fundamental basis. They dangle the carrot of a bit higher wages in front of a worker, but that carrot is small.

Unions are for those who are frightened of the world and who need laws to make the big, bad employers treat them in a way they might not actually deserve.

Going into business for oneself takes gumption and it's not for the faint of heart.

I would prefer to see a law that disbands unions altogether, but that's unlikely to happen. I would still support the OP law, however.

[FindersKeepers]

Not exactly. We are about a limited Federal government. This one is out of control and is trying to mandate union membership. This counters that.

Thanks for voicing that.

It can't be said often enough.

[gamewell45]

I'm sorry to tell you that it is not a common misconception. I spent a career with the Teamsters and worked very closely with the longshoreman/ warehouseman's union and in both cases we had exclusive hiring rights through our hiring halls. These days with the closing of some hiring halls in other unions, companies hire off the streets, but their people are required by contract to join the union and pay dues.

I can only tell you what the law says regarding this. I suspect if someone wanted to join the Teamsters as a "core" member, there is nothing stopping them from doing it legally.

[jet57]

I can only tell you what the law says regarding this. I suspect if someone wanted to join the Teamsters as a "core" member, there is nothing stopping them from doing it legally.

Members are members. I can tell you that all the big unions are that way; it’s a contractual matter, and they must be dues paying members or they don’t work in specific areas covered by contract.

Happy Friday!

[nathanbforrest45]

This is why I oppose unions on a fundamental basis. They dangle the carrot of a bit higher wages in front of a worker, but that carrot is small.

Unions are for those who are frightened of the world and who need laws to make the big, bad employers treat them in a way they might not actually deserve.

Going into business for oneself takes gumption and it's not for the faint of heart.

I would prefer to see a law that disbands unions altogether, but that's unlikely to happen. I would still support the OP law, however.

I will have to agree with Ayn Rand on this one. Her position was that unions have a right to exist on a company by company basis and not for an entire national "craft". If the employees of a company wish to unionize (and I would require more than a simple majority) then they have the right to do so but that unionization would be for that company or even that location only. There would be no "auto workers union" for every auto manufacturer in the country for example.