PDA

View Full Version : A Former Union Thug’s Take On Right-to-Work: What’s Right & What’s Not…




Tod
02-05-2012, 01:55 PM
Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka “union thug”) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it’s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation.

more here...

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2012/02/02/a-former-union-thugs-take-on-right-to-work-whats-right-whats-not/

mosquitobite
02-05-2012, 02:07 PM
It is worthwhile to note this because, in Indiana’s case, the Right-to-Work legislation was passed over and above the tantrums of union-bought Democrats. During the fight inside the Statehouse, union-bought Democrats attempted to have Right-to-Work placed on the ballot in November.

The purpose of this effort was simple. Union-bought Democrats like to ignore the fact that the United States is a Republican-form of Democracy. If given the opportunity to have Right-to-Work placed on November’s ballot, unions would spend tens of millions of their members’ money on deceptive advertising to defeat the legislation, as well as to turn out votes for Barack Obama and against “those evil Republicans.” In effect, it is running two campaigns for the price of one.

This brings us back to Ohio. Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant Chris Littleton is spearheading an effort to put Right-to-Work on Ohio’s November ballot. If successful in getting enough signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot, Littleton and his compadres will likely do nothing more than ensure an Obama victory in Ohio.

With unions collecting more than $8 billion per year in union dues, no amount of money Littleton can raise will be enough to outspend the unions on the issue Right-to-Work—as evidenced by the recent fight over SB5 (Issue 2) in November.

In fact, union bosses and Democrats are likely hoping for Littleton to get enough signatures to put Right-to-Work on the ballot. [Don't be too surprised if unions, either directly or indirectly through third-party operatives, quietly encourage people to sign the petitions.] Once Right-to-Work is on the ballot, unions can turn Ohio into World War IV (again).

Regardless of the amount of money Littleton and his associates may make from putting Right-to-Work on Ohio’s ballot, his efforts put the rest of the nation at risk of seeing Barack Obama win Ohio and, as a result, likely re-election. This is something that, hopefully, even Littleton’s presidential pick, Ron Paul, would see the practical ramifications of avoiding if it meant putting Obama back in the White House for four more years.

Very smart man!

carmaphob
02-05-2012, 02:22 PM
This guy knows what he's talking about.
From the comments:

LaborUnionReport is missing a big point about ‘Right to Work’ — the union’s proper role in the marketplace.

I’ve had the opportunity to talk to numerous union folks, many who have worked in several states — some right to work, some not right to work. They typically tell a story not oft told about unions and right to work rules.

For starters — “Right to Work” is somewhat of a misnomer, at least as far as the average workerbee goes. The key advantage of working in a right to work state (with the appropriate laws), is the union has to provide services to it’s members to validate the cost of belonging to the union. The union has to be sensitive the the worker marketplace.

In other words, right to work states may have unions. However, the unions have to work harder for their members than the members have to work for their leaders.

If the union leadership wastes member dues on leadership excesses, membership will drop. If union leadership doesn’t support common sense rules to clean up the union from slackers that keep the union from being as productive as possible, dues paying memberships may drop.

In other words, unions (and union leadership) have to be marketplace (and common sense) sensitive — something that is sorely lacking in many blue union states. Additionally, there many different flavors of “right to work” rules from state to state that change the union leadership–membership-marketplace relationship.

Right to Work isn’t the black and white issue as blue state unions propagandize folks to believe. There’s plenty of union members in right to work states that prefer their right to work status over the forced to toe the (stupid) union leadership line promoted in blue states.

Unions clearly have a place in any dynamic marketplace. Ideally, their role should be to enhance general marketplace vibrancy, not suck the marketplace down while union leadership lives the life of Riley outside of marketplace sensitivities.

NidStyles
02-05-2012, 03:57 PM
Right to Work laws are an effort of the "State" to correct it's mistake of allowing such thuggery tactics that make the Union essentially hold ownership over the employment of a particular business. Does it work, about as well as any State based initiative that corrects State based flaws.

From my position Right-to-Work would be the natural conclusion of any Union existing if those said Unions were not in reality a minor Labor Statisms that are attempting to threaten the Corporate Statist and the Governmental States. The real solution is to simply push the Government out of the situation, stop allowing Corporate Personhood under the Governmental State and then just leave the situation alone for the Markets to fix it. Not that any of that would ever happen in the US anyways.