PDA

View Full Version : Republicans introduce right to work bill.



Sev
03-08-2011, 01:03 PM
This should get good. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/80...-joining-unions (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/148101-republicans-introduce-bill-to-give-workers-a-choice-on-joining-unions)

<span style="color: #000000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>
Republicans introduce bill to give workers a choice on joining unions</span>
By Vicki Needham - 03/08/11 01:17 PM ET

Eight Republican Senators introduced a bill Tuesday giving workers a choice as to whether to join labor unions, which they argue will boost the nation's economy and provide an increase in wages.

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

From 2000 to 2008, about 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union to right to work states and a recent study found that there is "a very strong and highly statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth," and that from 1977 to 2007 right to work states experienced a 23 percent faster rise in per capita income than states with forced unionization.

"To see the negative impacts of forced unionization, look no further than the struggling businesses in states whose laws allow it," Vitter said. "It can’t be a coincidence that right to work states have on balance grown in population over the last 10 years, arguably at the expense of heavy union-favoring states."

DeMint blamed the problems faced by U.S. automakers on the unions.

"Forced-unionism helped lead to GM and Chrysler’s near bankruptcy and their requests for government bailouts as they struggled to compete in a global marketplace," he said. "When American businesses suff</span>er because of these anti-worker laws, jobs and investment are driven overseas.”

Sev
03-08-2011, 02:12 PM
If this gets through the house and senate the wailing from the unions will only be heard by dogs.

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 03:27 PM
This is stupid, and should be opposed by any conservative worthy of the name.

These are clearly state issues. States are free to become right to work states (I live in one, Florida, and Clinton was governor in one, Arkansas), or not, as THEIR VOTERS DEMAND of their legislatures.

Imposing what should be a choice by federal edict is the opposite of conservative views on such matters. But evidently loved by some who are conservatives, even though it's against their supposed principles, because they hate the unions that much.

Principles should apply across the board, and not be trimmed and hedged because you like or dislike this or that party to a controversy, or like or dislike a particular outcome.

Or don't you believe in the 10th amendment?

Sev
03-08-2011, 03:49 PM
I could be mistaken but I believe this applies to the federal government.

pooltchr
03-08-2011, 04:36 PM
I agree that each state should have the authority to make that determination. I also live in a right to work state, and I think it's great.

If Sev is correct and this is applying to Federal employees, I see no problem with it. I don't want to see Washington telling the states what to do. They already do too much of that as it is!

Steve

llotter
03-08-2011, 06:02 PM
Typical Leftist tactic is to use the Constitution when it is convenient all the while thumbing their nose at the document when it's not. The truth behind this ruse is that the Left defines both the law and morals to fit their ends but they respect neither.

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 06:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typical Leftist tactic is to use the Constitution when it is convenient all the while thumbing their nose at the document when it's not. The truth behind this ruse is that the Left defines both the law and morals to fit their ends but they respect neither. </div></div>

If this is the leftist tactic, what should be the correct tactic from the non-leftist right side that prefers to honor the Constitution? Emulate what you say is a horrible left-side tactic themselves, or remain faithful to the Constitution, period?

LWW
03-09-2011, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">or remain faithful to the Constitution, period? </div></div>

If only we did.

If we did, the fed would have no authority on union right to work at all.

LWW

llotter
03-09-2011, 06:47 AM
So, I guess you mean there should be no Wagner Act and no NLRB to interfere with states rights or individual rights if we were faithful to the Constitution. Or are you suggesting something else?

Sev
03-09-2011, 07:04 AM
Unfortunately various administrations and congresses have moved us away from the original intent of the constitution. Over time the states have ceded much of their power to the federal government.

llotter
03-09-2011, 07:48 AM
The county I moved from in NY a few years back had a total, 100% Republican legislature but their modus operandi was to get as much federal and state money to spend that didn't appear to cost local taxpayers very much at all. Their argument was, 'if we don't get the money, someone else will, so it isn't like we would be saving anybody any money if we refused to spend this 'free money'.

This is a very powerful argument even though the support eventually runs out for the various programs the distant taxpayers helped to start and had to be either ended or picked up by local taxes. What happened was that local taxes eventually had to be raised because government programs are seldom ended whether they work or not. So, suffering already high taxes that evolved from this history, it becomes doubly difficult to bite the bullet and lower dependence on that 'free money' when kicking the can down the road while getting re-elected is so easy and what we have been trained to do. This is really a microcosm of what has happened to our country and I guess the responsibility ultimately rests with the individual because it is his freedom that is being sacrificed.

It is a trap that we all have been warned about from the beginning. Jefferson warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance but now, as we grow more dependent of others for our welfare, it seems to be beyond our human nature to take what appears to be the harder path of personal responsibility when the easy one is made so accessible. The path we have chosen inevitably leads to poverty and slavery but I fear the will to fight has been too far depleted to change direction.

Sev
03-09-2011, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The county I moved from in NY a few years back had a total, 100% Republican legislature but their modus operandi was to get as much federal and state money to spend that didn't appear to cost local taxpayers very much at all. Their argument was, 'if we don't get the money, someone else will, so it isn't like we would be saving anybody any money if we refused to spend this 'free money'.

This is a very powerful argument even though the support eventually runs out for the various programs the distant taxpayers helped to start and had to be either ended or picked up by local taxes. What happened was that local taxes eventually had to be raised because government programs are seldom ended whether they work or not. So, suffering already high taxes that evolved from this history, it becomes doubly difficult to bite the bullet and lower dependence on that 'free money' when kicking the can down the road while getting re-elected is so easy and what we have been trained to do. This is really a microcosm of what has happened to our country and I guess the responsibility ultimately rests with the individual because it is his freedom that is being sacrificed.

It is a trap that we all have been warned about from the beginning. Jefferson warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance but now, as we grow more dependent of others for our welfare, it seems to be beyond our human nature to take what appears to be the harder path of personal responsibility when the easy one is made so accessible. The path we have chosen inevitably leads to poverty and slavery but I fear the will to fight has been too far depleted to change direction. </div></div>

That is why the financial collapse of the fed and the government is important.

You cant receive a handout when there is nothing left. The entitled will feel betrayed and turn on their masters.

pooltchr
03-09-2011, 09:26 AM
We have seen this firsthand very recently with the "stimulus" money. Washington gave money to the states to fund various government programs, hire more teachers, police, firefighters, etc. But that money only lasted for one year. Now those local governments that accepted the "handout", are faced with finding new sources of revenue to keep from being forced into more layoffs.

If someone were to give you a $10M home, but you find out that it costs you $100k per year to pay for upkeep, utilities, etc, it's going to be tough if you only make $50k per year.

There is no such thing as free. Somebody, somewhere, somehow, has to pay.

Steve

LWW
03-09-2011, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, I guess you mean there should be no Wagner Act and no NLRB to interfere with states rights or individual rights if we were faithful to the Constitution. Or are you suggesting something else? </div></div>

Exactly.

If states wish to be right to work, they should be able to.

If another state desires to compel everyone to join the Clown's Union, they should be able to.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 01:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, I guess you mean there should be no Wagner Act and no NLRB to interfere with states rights or individual rights if we were faithful to the Constitution. Or are you suggesting something else? </div></div>

There should be a presumption that things are handled at the lowest level of government that can make it work.

Things that the states routinely have handled successfully don't need a federal template overlay.

Things they cannot handle successfully on an individual state basis then become federal matters.

I suggest that the Wagner Act and the creation of the NLRB were examples of the latter situation, and properly under the federal government's mandates.

pooltchr
03-11-2011, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Things that the states routinely have handled successfully don't need a federal template overlay.

Things they cannot handle successfully on an individual state basis then become federal matters.

</div></div>

I must have missed that when I read the constitution. Can you tell me where it says that the Federal Government should take over when they don't think the states are doing a good job?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Does the constitution grant the federal government the right to step in on this particular issue???????

Steve

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, I guess you mean there should be no Wagner Act and no NLRB to interfere with states rights or individual rights if we were faithful to the Constitution. Or are you suggesting something else? </div></div>

There should be a presumption that things are handled at the lowest level of government that can make it work.

Things that the states routinely have handled successfully don't need a federal template overlay.

Things they cannot handle successfully on an individual state basis then become federal matters.

I suggest that the Wagner Act and the creation of the NLRB were examples of the latter situation, and properly under the federal government's mandates. </div></div>

That's somewhat close to support for the tenth amendment.

By the tenth, the feds have no authority to regulate labor negotiations at all.