UNION STATES vs RIGHT TO WORK STATES

[Cannot think of a name]

An average Hostess employee made anywhere from 27,000 to 43,000 per year, how is that unfair? And you have to pay union fees even if you do not want to be in a union. That is literally forcing someone to pay an orginization that they do not want to be apart of.

No, they started out at $43,000 a year and were being asked to take a cut from the $27,000 they were already pushed down to, after their self paid pensions had been raided and management had continued to give itself massive bonuses. That's how that's unfair.

And you get union benefits just by working at a place that has a union, those benefits were negotiated and campaigned for from the dues of the union. You're being asked to contribute to the organization that protects you.

[Kengburg]

An average Hostess employee made anywhere from 27,000 to 43,000 per year, how is that unfair? And you have to pay union fees even if you do not want to be in a union. That is literally forcing someone to pay an orginization that they do not want to be apart of.

Management was having an even better time of it, how is that fair?

They get the benefits of union membership without contributing to the union. How is that fair?

The workers did not choose to be in a union, you need to at least give them a choice, because their money is getting taken by unions who end up going on strike and taking the non-union workers jobs anyway, how is that fair? The Unions only represent 7% of the workforce of America, yet can take a whole company down.

[Farnhamia]

Management was having an even better time of it, how is that fair?

They get the benefits of union membership without contributing to the union. How is that fair?

The workers did not choose to be in a union, you need to at least give them a choice, because their money is getting taken by unions who end up going on strike and taking the non-union workers jobs anyway, how is that fair? The Unions only represent 7% of the workforce of America, yet can take a whole company down.

Uh huh. Hostess was being badly managed and on shaky ground. Name a company that the unions took down.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

The workers did not choose to be in a union, you need to at least give them a choice, because their money is getting taken by unions who end up going on strike and taking the non-union workers jobs anyway, how is that fair? The Unions only represent 7% of the workforce of America, yet can take a whole company down.

Uh huh. Hostess was being badly managed and on shaky ground. Name a company that the unions took down.

Why would unions (which the employees are part of) take down a corporation? I mean if they did that they would all be unemployed.

[Kengburg]

An average Hostess employee made anywhere from 27,000 to 43,000 per year, how is that unfair? And you have to pay union fees even if you do not want to be in a union. That is literally forcing someone to pay an orginization that they do not want to be apart of.

No, they started out at $43,000 a year and were being asked to take a cut from the $27,000 they were already pushed down to, after their self paid pensions had been raided and management had continued to give itself massive bonuses. That's how that's unfair.

And you get union benefits just by working at a place that has a union, those benefits were negotiated and campaigned for from the dues of the union. You're being asked to contribute to the organization that protects you.

That's like saying "This orginization made your rent costs go down without you asking, so now you must pay us money!" If workers are satisfied with their current pay they may not want unions to mess with it, and I do not care about Hostess, the real issue is forcing someone to pay an orginization they do not want to be apart of, the only difference is that in Right to work states you have a choice, and guess what, more workers have chosen to go without unions.

[Kengburg]

Uh huh. Hostess was being badly managed and on shaky ground. Name a company that the unions took down.

Why would unions (which the employees are part of) take down a corporation? I mean if they did that they would all be unemployed.

The unions thought that hostess would cave to their demands, but they didn't. So they had to liquidate. Hostess was being badly managed but the unions delivered the killing blow.

[Tubbsalot]

The workers did not choose to be in a union, you need to at least give them a choice, because their money is getting taken by unions who end up going on strike and taking the non-union workers jobs anyway, how is that fair? The Unions only represent 7% of the workforce of America, yet can take a whole company down.

These are all perfectly reasonable things to think, if for some reason you've swallowed the Evil Big Unions story in one poorly-judged gulp. Unions perform some pretty important functions - they don't hang around just so they can destroy the economy and annoy you personally.

[Tubbsalot]

The unions thought that hostess would cave to their demands, but they didn't. So they had to liquidate. Hostess was being badly managed but the unions delivered the killing blow.

Yes, it's entirely just that workers' pay should be halved while execs' pay is trebled. I don't see any problem with this, and accordingly the union is in the wrong here.

[Cannot think of a name]

No, they started out at $43,000 a year and were being asked to take a cut from the $27,000 they were already pushed down to, after their self paid pensions had been raided and management had continued to give itself massive bonuses. That's how that's unfair.

And you get union benefits just by working at a place that has a union, those benefits were negotiated and campaigned for from the dues of the union. You're being asked to contribute to the organization that protects you.

That's like saying "This orginization made your rent costs go down without you asking, so now you must pay us money!"

It's not like that at all.

If workers are satisfied with their current pay they may not want unions to mess with it,

Then they can vote 'no' on forming a union.

and I do not care about Hostess,

Well, now you don't...after you got your ass handed to you on the facts.

the real issue is forcing someone to pay an orginization they do not want to be apart of,

Isn't the whole cry of the libertarian is that no one is forcing you to take that job?

the only difference is that in Right to work states you have a choice, and guess what, more workers have chosen to go without unions.

Well, yeah, that's a pretty sweet deal. All the benefits and none of the sacrifice? Why, that's just down right 'merican right there.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.

^Exactly.

Unions are a vital part of a free market system. However forced membership is the same, if not worse than employers forcing specific conditions on them without negotiating.

[Cannot think of a name]

Why would unions (which the employees are part of) take down a corporation? I mean if they did that they would all be unemployed.

The unions thought that hostess would cave to their demands, but they didn't. So they had to liquidate. Hostess was being badly managed but the unions delivered the killing blow.

To quote one of the employees that was looking at an offer that was less than half of what he started at, "It'd be hard to replace the job I had but not to replace the one I was being offered." So to put it in market terms, Hostess was offering a job that was not competitive enough to bother with since they could get that kind of salary from working part time at a Starbucks...

[The Elven Imperium]

I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.

Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

Ahem. I live in Nevada and hate the fact we got right to work state. It more like right for you employee to fire you with out notice state.

[New Chalcedon]

Why would unions (which the employees are part of) take down a corporation? I mean if they did that they would all be unemployed.

The unions thought that hostess would cave to their demands, but they didn't. So they had to liquidate. Hostess was being badly managed but the unions delivered the killing blow.

By refusing to agree to 32% pay cuts while management awarded themselves 100% pay hikes, the year after they'd already made $110 million worth of pay concessions to help the company get back on its feet.

Yes, those dastardly unions - it's all their fault!!

As to the larger topic, I would simply like to note that "right to work" is the most Orwellian naming of a bill that I've ever seen, as not one State in the union requires that persons be union members prior to or as a condition of employment. You already have the right to work without joining a union; what you do not have is the right to freeload, by taking the services the union provides to all employees in a workplace (collective bargaining for improved pay and working conditions) and then refusing to pay your share into it. And believe me when I say that Republican legislators aren't letting you freeload off unions out of the goodness of their hearts: they're relying upon your freeloading to destroy the unions.

I should also like to note that of the 10 States with the highest median household incomes, only one (Virginia) is a "right to work" State, and that only because of the DC suburbs. Meanwhile, 7 of the 10 States with lowest incomes are right to work. "Right to work" = "right to work for less after the unions are destroyed by your freeloading".

And Reagan had something to say about unions:

"They [Solidarity members in Poland] remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

Why does the Republican Party hate freedom?

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

Nailed it

[The Serbian Empire]

I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.

Agree, without unions you may be working for $ 1- 2.50 per hour

The wage floor for the unskilled may naturally be there but employers will be forced to pay people more than the natural wage floor to keep the workers from leaving for an above market wage. It's hard to keep people from leaving a Wal Mart minimum wage job if Menard's pays 11 to 13 an hour and Costco is around 17.50 an hour.

[Cvtopia]

I have no problem with unions. I have a problem when you try to force workers into unions or when you try to prevent them from joining/forming one. Let the laborer decide.