Senate GOP introduces national open-shop bill

posted at 2:15 pm on March 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

In the last session of Congress, Democrats eventually retreated from Card Check despite holding large majorities in both chambers, with a President in the White House willing to sign it.  Senate Republicans in this session of Congress appear less tentative in pursuing their own version of labor reform.  Piggybacking off of Scott Walker’s efforts in Wisconsin, eight Republicans introduced the National Right to Work Act which would end closed shops throughout the nation:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), introduced the National Right to Work Act to “reduce workplace discrimination by protecting the free choice of individuals to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities,” according to a statement.

Seven other Republicans signed onto the effort: Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), James Risch (Idaho), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and David Vitter (La.).

“Facing a steady decline in membership, unions have turned to strong-arm political tactics to make forced unionization the default position of every American worker, even if they don’t want it,” Hatch said. “This is simply unacceptable. At the very least, it should be the policy of the U.S. government to ensure that no employee will be forced to join a union in order to get or keep their job.”

Republicans cited a recent poll they said shows that 80 percent of union members support having their policy and that “Right to Work” states outperform “forced-union” states in factors that affect worker well being.

Of course, this doesn’t have a prayer of passing, at least not as a standalone bill.  The House could pass a similar bill with no problem, but even the most moderate of red-state Democrats won’t vote to kneecap union dues collection, not when those dues go towards keeping Democrats in office.  That is the main reason that Wisconsin’s fleebaggers won’t return and allow the state to have a functioning legislature — because they’ll be signing their political death warrants if they do.  Even if the bill managed to escape Congress by getting at least 13 Democratic votes in the Senate, Barack Obama would waste no time in vetoing the bill.

That might prove to be a useful exercise, though.  If Republicans can force a floor vote on the bill — and they could use a discharge petition to do so, under certain conditions — it would force Democrats to either vote against it and endorse forced union membership and dues collections, or to filibuster it on the record to the same effect.  Democrats will paint this effort as “union-busting,” but unlike the necessarily more targeted focus in Wisconsin, this bill instead offers a broad defense of individual rights in the country as a whole.

If nothing else, the introduction of this bill forces Democrats to play defense rather than push again for Card Check for their own symbolic purposes.  As long as workers are forced to join unions as a condition of working in certain jobs, there is no justification whatsoever for stripping them of the secret ballot to determine whether those unions can take their money in the first place.  It’s a Card Check checkmate.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Indiana study shows Right To Work Law would have increased income for Indiana workers

As Indiana’s state legislators discuss the merits of passing Right to Work protections for Hoosier workers, a group of scholars released a study last week confirming (pdf) workers and their families in Right to Work states benefit from workplace freedom in a very tangible way. From a press release announcing their findings:

Improving the per-capita income of Indiana workers and creating more job opportunities for Hoosiers would be among the major benefits of Indiana becoming the 23rd state to pass a right-to-work (RTW) law, according to research released today by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. In addition, statewide voter polling results show Hoosiers favoring adoption of RTW by a 3-to-1 margin.

Dr. Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist, and his colleagues report in the study (Right-to-Work and Indiana’s Economic Future) that if Indiana had adopted RTW in 1977, per-capita income would have been $2,925 higher — or $11,700 higher for a family of four – by 2008. Looking forward (projecting the same growth rate in the next 10 years after adjusting for inflation), passage of a RTW law in 2011 would raise per capita income by $968 — or $3,872 for a family of four — by 2021.

The scholars conclude that a Right to Work law would benefit workers with greater job growth and real personal income. These results mirror the thorough research conducted by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), which has found that families benefit from Right to Work laws with more job availability and higher expendable income. No wonder workers and their families are seeking greater workplace freedom, leaving forced unionism states in droves.

rockmom on March 9, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Unions are so last century.

BuckeyeSam on March 9, 2011 at 3:28 PM

As long as they make millions for union leadership and stuff the pockets of democrats they’ll be around for a long time.

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I’m not anti-liberty, Chip. Sorry.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:25 PM

So, person who lives in WI has to move to another state if they want to teach but don’t want to belong to a union?

Wow. And it’s all for the children.

ladyingray on March 9, 2011 at 3:30 PM

betsyz on March 9, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Sorry, betz. You’re the delirious one.

ladyingray on March 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM

eh? You favor forcing people to buy health insurance and think forcing people to join unions is A-OK.

Perhaps our idea of liberty is different from yours. What’s your definition of liberty?

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 3:29 PM

What’s your definition of “forced?” No one’s forced to buy healthcare, you just pay slightly higher taxes if you choose not to. Also, no one’s “forced” to join a union, you just need to pay union dues if you freely choose to work for certain employer’s who have contracted to be a “union shop.”

I think a better question is, why do you support free-riding leeches so much? That is, why do you support people not purchasing insurance and dumping the costs of their emergency care on the rest of society? And why do you support workers not paying dues while reaping the benefits of unionization?

I look forward to your response.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

As long as they make millions for union leadership and stuff the pockets of democrats they’ll be around for a long time.

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 3:30 PM

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

Where Unions Are, Americans Aren’t

WASHINGTON–The American people have been voting with their feet, the Census Bureau announced on Tuesday, leaving states with heavy union influence and choosing to live in “right-to-work” states with higher job growth where they cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

But the National Labor Relations Board, now dominated by Obama appointees, is deaf to the preferences of voting Americans. It wants to do everything in its administrative power to tilt the playing field towards unionization-even if it means higher unemployment and lost jobs.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/12/23/where_unions_are_americans_arent_98809.html

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

employer’s employers

Gah.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

The GOP are introducing a lot of cool bills. Any of them stand a chance of passing?

PattyJ on March 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

So, person who lives in WI has to move to another state if they want to teach but don’t want to belong to a union?

Wow. And it’s all for the children.

ladyingray on March 9, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Can’t they just work for a private school?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM

No one’s forced to buy healthcare, you just pay slightly higher taxes if you choose not to.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

BREAKING NEWS! DENIAL FLOODS!

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 3:36 PM

What’s your definition of “forced?” No one’s forced to buy healthcare, you just pay slightly higher taxes if you choose not to. Also, no one’s “forced” to join a union, you just need to pay union dues if you freely choose to work for certain employer’s who have contracted to be a “union shop.”
crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

‘Forced’ is when certain options are artificially made more expensive than others in order to compel desired behavior.

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Who is forced to join a union? If you don’t want to join a union, don’t work at a closed shop. Just get a job with another employer.

Are you for people free-riding by reaping the benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Dude closed shop means that in the state of Wisconsin you cannot do those jobs without joining the union. So for instance, even Jesus himself could not fix your door (he was a carpenter) nor could DaVinci paint the trim without joining a political organization.

snoopicus on March 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Can’t they just work for a private school?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Damn liberal corporatists!

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 3:41 PM

No one’s forced to buy healthcare, you just pay slightly higher taxes if you choose not to.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Thats like saying, “no one forces you to pay taxes, they just arrest you if you dont.” your being retarted

snoopicus on March 9, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Crr6′s and other ststist’s version of freedom is making all choices except the one’s the statists like difficult to impossible to make for everyone but the wealthy. Their oppressive instincts destroy the lives of billions. One would think these people would have learned that their oppressive ways lead to ruin, but they are blinded to the destruction of the USSR, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Lybia, and other statist regimes.

Congrats on your oppressive instincts crr6.

GardenGnome on March 9, 2011 at 3:43 PM

What’s your definition of “forced?” No one’s forced to buy healthcare, you just pay slightly higher taxes if you choose not to. Also, no one’s “forced” to join a union, you just need to pay union dues if you freely choose to work for certain employer’s who have contracted to be a “union shop.”

uh at first…later those ‘slightly higher taxes’ will be huge penalties or jail time

Flout the mandate penalty? Face the IRS

Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The remarks Thursday from the committee’s chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama’s contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase.

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.”

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

Friday, Brown reported that Ensign got a clarification on what the result of “normal collection proceedings” might be, and got it in writing (HT Hot Air):
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/09/26/writing-under-obamacare-if-you-dont-buy-health-insurance-you-could-go-ja#ixzz1G8ZMawhv

I think a better question is, why do you support free-riding leeches so much? That is, why do you support people not purchasing insurance and dumping the costs of their emergency care on the rest of society? And why do you support workers not paying dues while reaping the benefits of unionization?

I look forward to your response.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

its called freedom…I know thats a foreign concept to you…

you’re a fascist.

right4life on March 9, 2011 at 3:44 PM

You don’t have “no choice” though. You can work somewhere else. The vase majority of workplaces aren’t union shops

so, the answer is that you can’t understand that simple concept. And you claim to be intellectually superior to the rest of us?

I’m not anti-liberty, Chip. Sorry.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:25 PM

It should be evident even to you that is the case, you simply haven’t accepted the truth in the matter. The rest of us can clearly see that is the case, but for some reason you can’t.

Perhaps it may damage your own political psyche, knowing that you hold contradictory beliefs – that of being a so-called ‘Liberal’ and yet being anti-liberty.

But we’re all here to help you out and let you work through these contradictory feelings you have.

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 3:44 PM

But we’re all here to help you out and let you work through these contradictory feelings you have.

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 3:44 PM

We are?

I prefer putting a stake in their failed pseudo communist ideology.

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM

‘Forced’ is when certain options are artificially made more expensive than others in order to compel desired behavior.

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM

That’s pretty broad. Am I forced not to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM

I think a better question is, why do you support free-riding leeches so much? That is, why do you support people not purchasing insurance and dumping the costs of their emergency care on the rest of society? And why do you support workers not paying dues while reaping the benefits of unionization?

I look forward to your response.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

A lot of those free riding “leeches” are illegals. Secondly, Medicare and medicaid don’t pay full cost. That’s dumped onto the paying customer as well.

So in essence, the government has created the problem and now seeks more government to fix what it created.

There’s also nothing wrong having people set up payment plans to pay for medical care. I’ve done it twice … hospitals are more than willing to make up payment plans well within reason for those without insurance.

Insurance isn’t the problem, it’s government and a unwillingness to make people pay for the treatment they receive.

As far as unions shops go, employess should have the option of accepting the job with the union and it’s negotiated pay and benefits or something else. The problem is there is no other option. You either have to join the union and pay, or look for non-union work in a union state.

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM

It should be evident even to you that is the case, you simply haven’t accepted the truth in the matter. The rest of us can clearly see that is the case, but for some reason you can’t.

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Chip, could you actually try to respond substantively to my points? And if you can’t, could you at least have the decency of admitting you’re wrong?

Thanks.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM

That’s pretty broad. Am I forced not to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM

That’s beyond asinine.

Steel on March 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Btw: We’re moving because my husband’s NON-union railroad-though it does pay into RR retirement-is transferring us.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 9, 2011 at 3:17 PM

My guess is your husband works for a short-line conglomerate. Probably in a supervisory capacity (hence the transer).

Best wishes for your move and new home.

tgharris on March 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM

That’s pretty broad. Am I forced not to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Yes

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM

And if you can’t, could you at least have the decency of admitting you’re wrong?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Got that denial flood under control yet?

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM

That’s pretty broad. Am I forced not to purchase alcohol, or cigarettes?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Also, am I forced to contribute to charity?

And does your definition apply to the private sector as well? If a business raises prices on good A and lowers prices on good B to incentivize me to buy good B, am I forced to purchase that good B?

Maybe one of the reasons you guys come off as so irrational and paranoid, is that you have an absurd conception of what “coercion” is.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM

That’s beyond asinine.

Steel on March 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I agree. But DarkCurrent seems to disagree with both of us.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM

What’s your definition of “forced?” No one’s forced to buy healthcare, you just pay slightly higher taxes if you choose not to. Also, no one’s “forced” to join a union, you just need to pay union dues if you freely choose to work for certain employer’s who have contracted to be a “union shop.”

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Merriam Webster dictionary:

Definition of FORCED
1 : compelled by force

In other words, compelled by higher taxes or being unable to work, etc.

So, is it okay to Compel people to act a certain way?

Just as it’s not contradictory to be anti-liberty and still consider yourself to be a ‘Liberal’?

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Maybe one of the reasons you guys come off as so irrational and paranoid, is that you have an absurd conception of what “coercion” is.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM

yeah Vinny and his boyz from teh union aren’t ‘coercive’ at all…LOL

you’re fine with coercion as long as its coercive liberalism.

right4life on March 9, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Also, am I forced to contribute to charity?
crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Technically, that’s your definition of working at a closed shop.

Also, no one’s “forced” to join a union, you just need to pay union dues

You’re not being forced to contribute to charity. You just need to pay more charity tax.

Skywise on March 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Chip, could you actually try to respond substantively to my points? And if you can’t, could you at least have the decency of admitting you’re wrong?

Thanks.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM

I could ask the same, all you respond with is the same old lame, you’re not being forced to do anything line of reasoning when clearly you are.

I’m still curious how a person can purport to be in a Liberal and yet be Anti-liberty.

How do you resolve that in your own mind?

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I’d pay to hear crr6 call into Mark Levin with his lib logic and hear the destruction the great one would level. Levin is forced to be in a union due to being a broadcaster and even though he physically broadcasts from the right to work state of VA, his owner is hq’d in NY. He can’t get out. He must be in a union to broadcast.

The left is about enslaving workers to organizations they don’t want to be in. Why do you support slavery, crr6?

Renwaa on March 9, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Dude closed shop means that in the state of Wisconsin you cannot do those jobs without joining the union. So for instance, even Jesus himself could not fix your door (he was a carpenter) nor could DaVinci paint the trim without joining a political organization.

snoopicus on March 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Well put.
BTW- I know a guy who’s a paid advocate of a union for several different ‘trades’ i.e. carpenters, electricians,general work contractors, etc.
He is based out of ND, but also I believe works in & around MN, SD.
This union is voluntarily joined.
This union makes their members ‘worth’ more than others who are not members bcs this union requires you pass a test, testing verbal & written as well as mathematical skills.
There are other basic requirements in joining this organization & you pay a certain % of your wages as dues (I think).
Anyone who hires a member of this union must pay a certain wage, which is above the norm.
However, employers know they are getting highly qualified individuals in those fields.
I think this is excellent. This is a union which is providing its members a valuable service, i.e. opportunities for training in certain types of welding, etc.
The union is actually bettering its members by giving them training & then they fix them up with prospective employers who want to hire better quality workers.
This is how it should be.

Badger40 on March 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM

And does your definition apply to the private sector as well? If a business raises prices on good A and lowers prices on good B to incentivize me to buy good B, am I forced to purchase that good B?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM

In that case you have the option to buy neither, or a competitors less expensive product. Which the higher price for good A may force you to do…

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Maybe one of the reasons you guys come off as so irrational and paranoid, is that you have an absurd conception of what “coercion” is.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Uh … no. What’s absurd is your concept of coercion.

Buy health insurance or pay a “penalty” … Cool! Not coercion!

Either join a union or move out of state to work … Cool! Not coercion!

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 4:01 PM

crr6 still hasn’t addressed the fundamental issue: yes, in a right to work state you can go to a non union shop to get work. But in a closed shop state, THERE ARE NO NON UNION shops! You want to be an electrician, you have to join the union. You want to teach, gotta join the teachers union. And crr6 wants card check, which means any place that doesn’t want to be union will have vinnie and the boyz there with clubs in hand to make sure it becomes union, even in a right to work state.

Tell me, crr6: How is any of that “liberty?” “Boy, you want to work in this field, gotta donate your money to the Dems!” I guess changing careers or moving is still an option… until it’s not, of course.

Vanceone on March 9, 2011 at 4:04 PM

My guess is your husband works for a short-line conglomerate. Probably in a supervisory capacity (hence the transer).

Best wishes for your move and new home.

tgharris on March 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Yes on the short-line. No on the supervisory.
He is an old-school railroader-worked for the former ICG and later CNW/UP- so he knows railroads front to back/back to front.
That type of experience counts for something.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 9, 2011 at 4:04 PM

when clearly you are.

NO YOU ARE NOT!!!! For CHRIST’S SAKE!@@!!!! What is the matter with you? Can’t you think!?

If a business raises prices on good A and lowers prices on good B to incentivize me to buy good B, am I forced to purchase that good B?

Exactly!!

Grow Fins on March 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I could ask the same, all you respond with is the same old lame, you’re not being forced to do anything line of reasoning when clearly you are.

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Chip,

You’re going to have to come up with a better argument than “clearly you are.” Now might be a good time to save face and just admit you’re wrong.

I think another interesting thing that hasn’t been brought up yet, is that it’s actually you guys who are being coercive by advocating right to work laws. Workplaces that are “union shops” got that way because the union and employer freely contracted to add a security clause in the bargaining agreement. You guys are coercively interfering with their freedom of contract by saying “no, we want the law to prohibit you from agreeing to that.”

Why do you oppose freedom of contract, Chip? Isn’t that “anti-liberty?”

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

If a business raises prices on good A and lowers prices on good B to incentivize me to buy good B, am I forced to purchase that good B?

A choice to purchase something isn’t an equal to the inability to work within an industry because of the requirement to join a union. It is a false analogy.

Steel on March 9, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Grow Fins on March 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Your comments are beginning to take on a distinct Charlie Sheeniness quality.

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Exactly!!

Grow Fins on March 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM

By his definition, we’re actually forced not to buy virtually any goods if we live in a state with a sales tax.

Ahhh, good times.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Can’t they just work for a private school?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM

That or they can support the crushing of the existing union

darwin-t on March 9, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Why do you oppose freedom of contract, Chip? Isn’t that “anti-liberty?”

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Woops, forgot to add the ominous bold face in there.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Why do you oppose freedom of contract, Chip? Isn’t that “anti-liberty?”

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Seems to me you’re opposing the freedom of the individual to make his or own own contract with the employer.

Why do you oppose individual freedom of contract, crr6?

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 4:11 PM

his or own her own contract

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM

My guess is your husband works for a short-line conglomerate. Probably in a supervisory capacity (hence the transer).

Best wishes for your move and new home.

tgharris on March 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Yes on the short-line. No on the supervisory.
He is an old-school railroader-worked for the former ICG and later CNW/UP- so he knows railroads front to back/back to front.
That type of experience counts for something.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 9, 2011 at 4:04 PM

That type of experience should count for a lot. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always. I’m glad in his case it did.

tgharris on March 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM

By his definition, we’re actually forced not to buy virtually any goods if we live in a state with a sales tax.

Ahhh, good times.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:09 PM

How does that logic work?

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Workplaces that are “union shops” got that way because the union and employer freely contracted to add a security clause in the bargaining agreement.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

I disagree. So now you’re saying that collusion and price fixing to cut out individual offers is legal because two companies “freely contracted” with each other?

Skywise on March 9, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Awesome. This is what needs to happen.

Texas is a right to work state, and things are booming here, compared to the rest of the country.

There’s a reason why all of the foreign car companies have built their assembly plants in the South.

No unions.

gary4205 on March 9, 2011 at 4:15 PM

I think a better question is, why do you support free-riding leeches so much? That is, why do you support people not purchasing insurance and dumping the costs of their emergency care on the rest of society? And why do you support workers not paying dues while reaping the benefits of unionization?

I look forward to your response.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

If an employer employs union & non-union workers, the employer should be free to pay these people differently.
And they can.
For instance, here in ND, a right to work state, even though unions often negotiate contract benefits for non-union members, that is only setting the baseline contractual benefits the union negotiated.
When a non-union members signs away their right to negotiate for contract TO the union members, that non-member is FORFEITING their right to negotiate on their own behalf.
Do they benefit from doing that? Sure.
However, they may not.
I know of science teachers in this state, a hot commodity, who have negotiated on their own behalf a bonus from a district for being hired.
It is actually what I hope to do.
I am a valuable commodity here in ND & I can actually negotiate a higher wage for myself.
Does the union,of which I am a part of, like this?
Of course they don’t.
Do I care?
No.

Badger40 on March 9, 2011 at 4:19 PM

You’re going to have to come up with a better argument than “clearly you are.” Now might be a good time to save face and just admit you’re wrong.

You seem to be obsessing on this point, why is that?

You have yet to come up with a cogent argument other than having no choice is somehow a choice.

I realize that letting people have choices in their lives means they have more Liberty, you can’t seem to grasp that concept and would rather try to truncate the argument with a plain ‘You’re wrong’ line of reasoning without an logical backup.

I think another interesting thing that hasn’t been brought up yet, is that it’s actually you guys who are being coercive by advocating right to work laws. Workplaces that are “union shops” got that way because the union and employer freely contracted to add a security clause in the bargaining agreement. You guys are coercively interfering with their freedom of contract by saying “no, we want the law to prohibit you from agreeing to that.”

Why do you oppose freedom of contract, Chip? Isn’t that “anti-liberty?”

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

So, it is your contention that employers want union shops?

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Can’t they just work for a private school?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM

That, ofcourse, is pretty stupid.
The state/feds have a monopoly on the jobs.
And no, there aren’t a lot of private schools vs public.
The state/feds are actually outcompeting private schools unfairly through the use of tax dollars.
I have no problem with unions existing.
Bcs I’m a member of one, in a right to work state.
But I have the choice.
And I can teach ANYWHERE in the state, still not be FORCED to join the union for my profession.

Badger40 on March 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Who is forced to join a union? If you don’t want to join a union, don’t work at a closed shop. Just get a job with another employer.

Are you for people free-riding by reaping the benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM

I work for the government but I don’t belong to the Union. I don’t want any part of what I earn going to the Union and, then going to the Dimmocritic party. Most people who work with me don’t belong to the Union – yet the Union does exist here – it may only have 5 members but … oh well.

Trust in LIBERTY crr6 – it works. Unionized and Non-Unionized can work together just fine! Why are you afraid of individual choice?

HondaV65 on March 9, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Bravo! At least it’s a move in the right direction.

petefrt on March 9, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I think another interesting thing that hasn’t been brought up yet, is that it’s actually you guys who are being coercive by advocating right to work laws. Workplaces that are “union shops” got that way because the union and employer freely contracted to add a security clause in the bargaining agreement. You guys are coercively interfering with their freedom of contract by saying “no, we want the law to prohibit you from agreeing to that.”

Why do you oppose freedom of contract, Chip? Isn’t that “anti-liberty?”

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

So you are saying I have a choice then to opt out of Obamacare?
The federal govt isn’t strong arming me at all into something i do not want, right?
Bcs of course, that never happens.
And so in a state like WI, all public schools are happy with their union-led workforce.
So the mob dictates how things will be done & this was willingly entered into?
What a bunch of horsecrap.

Badger40 on March 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Mike Lee and Pat Toomey – I am proud of the fact that I supported you.

Marco Rubio – Where are you?

antisocial on March 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Can’t they just work for a private school?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM

How many jobs do you think there are as private school teachers vs. public school teachers?

ladyingray on March 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Workplaces that are “union shops” got that way because the union and employer freely contracted to add a security clause in the bargaining agreement.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Something along the lines of, “Add this clause, or else.”

We’ve seen how union thugs reps operate.

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM

I realize that letting people have choices in their lives means they have more Liberty, you can’t seem to grasp that concept and would rather try to truncate the argument with a plain ‘You’re wrong’ line of reasoning without an logical backup.

Huh? That’s what you’ve been doing. You made an argument, I made a counter-argument, and you’ve been unable to formulate a response, other than saying “you’re wrong” or “it’s clear I’m right.” If you can’t respond, I think you should man up and admit you’re wrong.

So, it is your contention that employers want union shops?

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Some might. But regardless, it’s clear that they freely contract to them. You want to remove a choice from the two parties by force of law.

Would you mind answering my question though, Chip?

Why do you oppose freedom of contract, Chip? Isn’t that “anti-liberty?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Are you for people free-riding by reaping the benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues?

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Are you for people free-riding by collecting cushy benefits paid for by the taxpayer?

Missy on March 9, 2011 at 4:38 PM

rush was all over this today. union members vote 50/50 in many states, Republican and Democrat.

Yet 95% of union political contributions go to the Dems.

ain’t fair.

DrW on March 9, 2011 at 4:38 PM

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Unions monopolize control of a critical resource. Requiring an employee to employ union labor is no different than forcing them to buy their computers from Dell. Monopolies render capitalism dysfunctional. Without competition the laws of supply and demand can be manipulated to giveadvantage to one side only. That is why most private unionized companies have gone under and why unionized states are following suit.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2011 at 4:39 PM

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Grow Fins on March 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM

You two don’t have a clue as to what a labor union is.
You two don’t have a clue as to what a Right To Work state is.
You two don’t have a clue as to what a closed shop is.

You two don’t have a clue. I’ll bet neither of you have had to work in a blue collar environment or that you have an ounce of honest work experience in your short, undistinguished lives.

Go out and get some worldly experience and then come back here and comment on what you found.

Vince on March 9, 2011 at 4:39 PM

That is why most private unionized companies have gone under and why unionized states are following suit.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Link please.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Cry havoc and let slip the union thugs of war!

Progressives Love, Love, LOVE Unions… (For Everyone But Themselves)

Progressives, it seems, love their labor unions through thick and thin…Except when unions come to unionize their businesses. Then, and only then, their Marxist ideals get traded out for their inner Gordon Gecko, their love for Lenin…Well, you get the point.

The funny thing is, there are so many so-called Progressive Business Leaders out there that it would be very interesting to see just how many are unionized…Or, whether they want to become unionized.

Rule No. 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/01/20/progressives-love-love-love-unions-for-everyone-but-themselves/

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Libs just aren’t getting the message!\\

Where Unions Are, Americans Aren’t

WASHINGTON–The American people have been voting with their feet, the Census Bureau announced on Tuesday, leaving states with heavy union influence and choosing to live in “right-to-work” states with higher job growth where they cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/12/23/where_unions_are_americans_arent_98809.html

That is, until the left impose “travel restrictions” keeping people where they need to be.

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Link please.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:40 PM

No need. Just look at the steel, textile and auto industries for a start. In fact look at most manufacturing in the US and see what remains after the unions have had their day.

Nice try at evading the case I presented to you, however. Why bother addressing the argument that unions are monopolies and have the same destructive effects on capitalism as other monopolies.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2011 at 4:44 PM

What’s your definition of “forced?” No one’s forced to buy healthcare, you just pay slightly higher taxes if you choose not to. Also, no one’s “forced” to join a union, you just need to pay union dues if you freely choose to work for certain employer’s who have contracted to be a “union shop.”

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM

You’d be a good writer for The Onion. Seriously.

BTW, Ms. Ivy League Law Student, it should be employers not employer’s.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 4:45 PM

The Republican House is developing quite an impressive record of proposing and passing things that have absolutely no chance of becoming law.
crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM

And the Democrat Congress of the past 2 years has quite an impressive record of passing unpopular laws.

Add to that the reality that to Democrats compromise is synonymous with capitulating to their agenda and I’m not sure what your point is.

gwelf on March 9, 2011 at 4:46 PM

But regardless, it’s clear that they freely contract to them. You want to remove a choice from the two parties by force of law.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM

How do you figure? I live in a right to work state, and there are unions here. A person just can’t be forced into joining and paying dues if they don’t want to. (Except for the railroad).

Why did Saturn build a plant in middle Tennessee? No closed shop. Why is Volkswagon building a plant in Chattanooga? No closed shop.

ladyingray on March 9, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Good to see Risch sign on to this. Idaho is also a Right-To-Work state.

Ace ODale on March 9, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Why bother addressing the argument that unions are monopolies and have the same destructive effects on capitalism as other monopolies.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2011 at 4:44 PM

If that’s true, explain the recent economic successes in Germany and Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM

In fact look at most manufacturing in the US and see what remains after the unions have had their day.

It always kills me that the same people who moan and whine about manufacturing being outsourced, also fully support unionized labor within those same industries. Um, what did you imagine would happen when unions made it impossible for US companies to compete internationally while employing expensive union US labor?

Missy on March 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Let’s look at the US auto industry:

Chrysler, Ford, GM…unionized. 2/3 bankrupt, the 3rd not far behind. Quality so poor, you woduln’t let your mother in law ride in one of those UAW made pieces of junk.

Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedez-Benz, Kia, Hyundai. All have plants all over the US. All non-union. All plants doing great and constantly expanding production and all with exceptional quality.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM

If that’s true, explain the recent economic successes in Germany and Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Woops! I meant to say Brazil, not Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Success in Spain? Are you high? Do you know what the S in PIIGS stands for? As for any foreign example you want to cite, their laws are different and so one cannot make direct comparisons.

But of course you are just thrashing by bringing up this red herring just as your demand for a link to provide what is the most common of knowledge about domestic industry.

The onus is on you to put up or shut up. Just how does unionized labor differ from any other form of monopoly in its destructive effects on a free market?

MJBrutus on March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Why did Saturn build a plant in middle Tennessee? No closed shop. Why is Volkswagon building a plant in Chattanooga? No closed shop.

ladyingray on March 9, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Why did Nissan also open up in TN and in Mississippi? Why did Toyota build in Kentucky, Texas and Mississippi? Or Honda in Alabama? Or BMW in S. Carolina? Or Kia in Georgia? Or Hyundai in Alabama? Or Mercedes-Benz in Alabama?

Unions are an albatross for any company looking to succeed.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM

No need. Just look at the steel, textile and auto industries for a start. In fact look at most manufacturing in the US and see what remains after the unions have had their day.
MJBrutus on March 9, 2011 at 4:44 PM

The US still has most of the world’s lawyers. I brag about that all the time here.

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM

If that’s true, explain the recent economic successes in Germany and Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Have you not been reading the news lately about Spain?

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Success in Spain? Are you high?

No, just tired. I meant to say Brazil.

As for any foreign example you want to cite, their laws are different and so one cannot make direct comparisons.

What an awful cop out.

If a your position is that high degree of union density is fundamentally incompatible with economic prosperity and growth, you need to explain Germany and Brazil. It’s as simple as that.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:56 PM

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Dude. You lost this one, hang it up.

Turns out the public has been funding the democrat machine whether they want to or not. Just like forced unionization. This is the face of government corruption and in the end, even the most liberal of Americans will benefit from stamping it out.

mike_NC9 on March 9, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Woops! I meant to say Brazil, not Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Brazil … is that why Ford built a brand new state of the art plant there and just closed a plant in St Louis?

Shipping jobs out of the country.

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Woops! I meant to say Brazil, not Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Sure you didn’t mean Greece and Portugal, or Ireland?

Roy Rogers on March 9, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The US still has most of the world’s lawyers. I brag about that all the time here.

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM

You’re cruel.

darwin on March 9, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The US still has most of the world’s lawyers. I brag about that all the time here.

DarkCurrent on March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Haha.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Thugs and featherbeders hardest hit.

mojo on March 9, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Who is forced to join a union? If you don’t want to join a union, don’t work at a closed shop. Just get a job with another employer.
Are you for people free-riding by reaping the benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues?
crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM

So to sum up your philosophy: you dont have to join our union but it would be a shame if something happened to your job.

I love the way your logic works. The government and unions force you to take a “benefit/entitlement” then use this fact to force you to do things their way.

gwelf on March 9, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Brazil’s union rate is 12%.

So yes crr6, you’re right. Brazil is a great example of a country that is doing well economically because it has few unions.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Be realistic…how much would the average (non-union) salary for an industrial worker in America have to be in order to bring back those jobs?

10 maybe 20 dollars a day?

Most workers in the U.S. have never been in a union…and many have lost their jobs to overseas operations anyway.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM

BRAZIL: Weakened Trade Unions Look to Lula for Help

by Mario Osava, Inter Press Service
March 12th, 2003

Trade unions proliferated in Brazil from 1991 to 2001, but their power did not keep in step, says a report that is fueling debate now that the nation’s president is a man was a unionist himself, former metalworker Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The labor movement “needs to renovate itself, set a new agenda,” and not limit itself to demanding a salary increase once a year, says Joao Felicio, president of CUT

Germany’s trade unions are calling for the abolition of private health insurance

One reason for the decline of Germany’s trade unions is economic. Since 1991, the membership rate among workers has dipped from 32% to 20%. Even in the western part of Germany, most firms no longer adhere to industry-wide wage agreements. Many others make use of “opening clauses”, which let hard-pressed companies temporarily impose longer working hours or lower wages; unsurprisingly, real pay rises have lagged behind formally negotiated increases by a cumulative 12% in the past ten years.

If that’s true, explain the recent economic successes in Germany and Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM
Woops! I meant to say Brazil, not Spain.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Dumb azz.

Vince on March 9, 2011 at 5:03 PM

I love the way your logic works. The government and unions force you to take a “benefit/entitlement” then use this fact to force you to do things their way.

gwelf on March 9, 2011 at 5:01 PM

That’s liberal SOP. How can you possibly be against SS? Don’t you know you NEED SS? That’s why we have to force you into it. For you own good, silly peasant.

How can you be against Obamacare? Don’t you know you NEED Obamacare? That’s why we have to force you into it, for your own good, silly peasant.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM

If a your position is that high degree of union density is fundamentally incompatible with economic prosperity and growth, you need to explain Germany and Brazil. It’s as simple as that.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:56 PM

See

Vince on March 9, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Vince on March 9, 2011 at 5:07 PM

What an awful cop out.

If a your position is that high degree of union density is fundamentally incompatible with economic prosperity and growth, you need to explain Germany and Brazil. It’s as simple as that.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:56 PM

I was drafting my response when you posted your Spain/Brazil correction.

And no it isn’t a cop out, but your posts have been nothing but. I don’t know to what degree private or public industries are unionized in those nations or how their unionized industries have performed. Nor do I know the labor law there such as whether closed shops are even allowed. I also do not know what benefits are socialized by their governments and what employers supply.I suspect you don’t either. I do know that those factor render comparisons meaningless. And I don’t care because we are not discussing Germany or Spain or Brazil.

You are evading any response to the point I made because you have no argument. You want to change the subject. That is the definition of copping out. Face it, you have no counter-argument because the truth of what I said has been borne out over and over again. Unionization has resulted in the failure of manufacturing in this country and it is the reason that so many of our state governments are insolvent for the reasons you cannot refute.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Vince on March 9, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Vince on March 9, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Did you even read the article? It doesn’t refute anything I said. The guy you quoted just said unions need to start caring about political issues as well as economic ones.

Brazil’s union rate is 12%.

So yes crr6, you’re right. Brazil is a great example of a country that is doing well economically because it has few unions.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM

1) Let me see a link.
2) If you’re right, then their unionization rate is similar to ours, yet they’ve had robust economic growth. That still debunks MJBrutus’ point.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 5:11 PM

1) Let me see a link.
2) If you’re right, then their unionization rate is similar to ours, yet they’ve had robust economic growth. That still debunks MJBrutus’ point.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 5:11 PM

1. It’s called Google. Try it.

2. Blah blah blah. Their union rate is low. They are doing well economically. Greece, Ireland, Spain all have union rates much higher and are bankrupt. Any rational person can conclude that low union rate = better economy. But you keep on spinning if you must.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I realize that letting people have choices in their lives means they have more Liberty, you can’t seem to grasp that concept and would rather try to truncate the argument with a plain ‘You’re wrong’ line of reasoning without an logical backup.

Huh? That’s what you’ve been doing. You made an argument, I made a counter-argument, and you’ve been unable to formulate a response, other than saying “you’re wrong” or “it’s clear I’m right.” If you can’t respond, I think you should man up and admit you’re wrong.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM

See if you can follow along, You’ve expressed disagreement with people having freedom of choice – in having to join a union, contribute to political parties they do not support or having to buy into Unconstitutional Obamacare.

You tried to dance around the issue, claiming that although people do not have choice in these matters, they somehow still do.

Either you have choice in joining or you don’t

Either you have choice in contributing to political parties you do not support or you don’t.

Either you have choice in buying into Unconstitutional Obamacare or you don’t.

Either you have choice or you don’t, how much simpler do I have to make that?

Chip on March 9, 2011 at 5:17 PM

1. It’s called Google. Try it.

I did, and I couldn’t find it. Post your link, if you have one.

2. Blah blah blah. Their union rate is low. They are doing well economically.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 5:15 PM

According to you, it’s as high as ours, yet they’re doing great. That invalidates your point.

And of course you’re not even mentioning Germany.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Also crr6, what else Brazil has that we don’t is access to their vast natural resources. They have lots of oil and they are allowed to get it. Unlike here where Obama has essentially put a NO WORKERS NEED APPLY sign on every oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be created tomorrow if the oil in Colorado and Montana were allowed to be extracted. Some estimates have put the oil in Montana alone at around the oil in Saudi Arabia. But it’s off limits of course because a Moose or two might be inconvenienced.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 5:19 PM

According to you, it’s as high as ours, yet they’re doing great. That invalidates your point.

And of course you’re not even mentioning Germany.

crr6 on March 9, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Let’s try again.

My point: lower union rate = better economy

Brazil Rate Greece, Spain, Ireland

Surely even you can follow that logic.

And what about Germany? Their union rate has been cut in half over the past 20 years and while not quite at Brazil levels is getting there slowly.

angryed on March 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3